Skip to main content

Crossposted from Docudharma
Now that Barack has been anointed in corn....It is time to ask some tough questions.

Photobucket
He has said that the country needs to be united, and it is tough to argue with that! The question is ....how? Will he attempt unity through healing the wounds George Bush and friends have inflicted on America and the world? Or by sweeping them under some national rug of unity?

My hope is he sees the necessity of beating back the very forces that UNunified the country through their incredibly destructive and self serving partisanship. WE didn't start this fire, Karl Rove and newt Gingrich did, the power mad Republicans in the WH and in Congress did. Giving them a free pass on both their crimes and on the damage that their brand of burn the house down politics has done, in the utopian idea of some form of unity with these lying sacks of hackery and deceit won't help. Bush will be gone, but his accomplices in Congress will still be there. And in the worst case scenario, the scariest one, they play Obama's good intentions like a fiddle, mouthing platitudes while sharpening their very bloody knives.

Of course the race is not over and I am certainly not anointing Obama. I would be asking these questions of whoever had won in the cornfields. Let me repeat that...I would be asking these questions of whoever had won in the cornfields. But the specter of naivete and gullibility do hang over Barack's head slightly more than the other two candidates, both due to his inexperience, some past statements about cooperating with Republican politicians, and his well....niceguyness.

IF he is speaking of a Unity of The People, that is indeed a worthy goal...if on the other hand he is speaking of Unity with the remains of the Bushco crime family that will linger like a bad smell...that is a different matter all together. Unifying.....working with...reaching out to, Republican VOTERS is one thing...attempting to unify with the Republican politicians is another one completely. Half of Bush's base (Republican voters) have abandoned him, reaching out to these folks makes a certain amount of sense. Reaching out to Republican politicians who have still not abandoned Bush and expecting to pull back anything but a bloody stump is just plain naive.

So here is the question, candidate Obama, phrased in political speak (Since no pol will announce that he/she is "going after" Bushco when they take office.)

Will you appoint and independent investigator to hunt down and expose the evidence of wrongdoing by your predecessor?

Will you roll back the Unitary Executive powers that Bush has claimed?

Will you take the necessary steps to restore Habeas Corpus?

Will you restore the Fourth Amendment so that citizens will be safe in their homes from their own government?

Will you close Gitmo and the Secret Prisons?

Will you launch FULL investigations into the politicization and subversion of the DOJ and the intelligence agencies?

When you take office, will you remove all remnants of "The Bushies" in the DOJ and instruct your newly staffed Department of Justice to vigorously pursue investigations in to the many and various....and many....criminal and suspect activities of the Bush Administration?

Or will you announce, as so may others have done before you, on so many occasions that the "past is past" and that we "must move on" and let the outrages and illegalities of the previous eight years fade away?

Please remember that many of the perpetrators of todays injustices were also involved in Watergate, were involved in Iran Contra and the Death Squads in Central America. That these people have continued in power, continued to pursue their own agendas out of their twisted ideologies, that these in fact are the very people that have CAUSED the disunity in America that you decry.

The People of America and the world simply cannot unite and heal our differences while these cancers on real democracy exist in our midst, unexposed and unpunished. In order to unite us into a new and healthy nation and restore our role as a world leader, this cancer must be excised.

Will you be able to do that President Obama? If your promise of hope and unity for America means anything, that is the first step, cleaning house. Can you make that promise to us? Can you deliver on that promise?

Originally posted to buhdydharma on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:01 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  ???????????????????????????? (313+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, arlam, EvanAllen, Sue, Pat K California, Angie in WA State, wclathe, vicki, miriam, KJD, deben, Trendar, slip kid no more, tiggers thotful spot, MarkC, catfish, ljm, stumpy, janinsanfran, sara seattle, Shockwave, Heimyankel, billlaurelMD, OLinda, linnen, Ugluks Flea, mainely49, polecat, Matilda, object16, givmeliberty, Jerome a Paris, Birdman, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, karno, concernedamerican, Boston Boomer, bronte17, conchita, TracieLynn, Dazy, landrew, Silverleaf, anotherCt Dem, megs, nyceve, chuckvw, PBnJ, cosmic debris, Porfiry, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, roses, cognitive dissonance, Fe, lilnubber, antirove, kredwyn, lanikai, nancelot, emmasnacker, TexDem, pat bunny, Chicago Lulu, Chamonix, StuartZ, lezlie, exiledfromTN, noveocanes, betson08, MATTIUS, AbsurdEyes, beachmom, gnat, Pohjola, Brian82, Rxtr2, fritzrth, inclusiveheart, barbwires, Panda, Donna in Rome, fran1, poemworld, Knightrider, vacantlook, rmx2630, Demfem, Shapeshifter, Illissius, lukery, rapala, averageyoungman, nailbender, nehark, angrybird, Fabian, chumley, humphrey, sd4david, Leslie H, bloomer 101, Bluesee, farleftcoast, rstnfld, SherwoodB, Lying eyes, mgris, Paul Goodman, sap, Jersey Girl, elkhunter, frandor55, clammyc, Simplify, tomfool, juliesie, amRadioHed, Turkana, boofdah, LNK, newmexicobear, Pam from Calif, Jaime Frontero, jimreyn, GreyHawk, skralyx, eaglecries, lotlizard, Ice Blue, swissffun, babatunde, simultaneous contrast, Marcus Junius Brutus, ikrisarus, WisePiper, power model, Lisa Lockwood, sbdenmon, deepsouthdoug, dsteffen, MetalCelt, Rogneid, rsr, Flippant, JanL, Ekaterin, ohcanada, Jim P, maryru, Reality Bites Back, berko, dehrha02, ThaliaR, rserven, dus7, Icy, BobzCat, Do Tell, PatsBard, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, cybersaur, tung sol, Opakapaka, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, rcald, Dvalkure, victoria2dc, kestrel9000, annagranfors, dougymi, deha, cliffradz, akasha, greenearth, Hobbitfoot, CAL11 voter, DarkestHour, goodlittlesquid, real world chick, FireCrow, FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph, NearlyNormal, CTLiberal, joeshwingding, el cid, Unitary Moonbat, doinaheckuvanutjob, ChapiNation386, rage, vox humana, CA Nana, FloridaVoter, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, Lovo, Stripe, Dreaming of Better Days, jjellin, nyc in exile, kurious, bstotts, kidneystones, Friend of the court, coolsub, zephron, Temmoku, sea note, markthshark, Grannus, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, DrMicro, BentLiberal, ammasdarling, beaukitty, FoundingFatherDAR, marykk, nhcollegedem, A Mad Mad World, ibonewits, xaxado, SomeStones, C Barr, Cottagerose, FWIW, godislove, DocbytheBay, suburi, Outrider, McGirk, FishOutofWater, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, Owllwoman, Matt Z, flumptytail, Jimdotz, greenchiledem, deepeco, DWG, Tenn Wisc Dem, walkingdeer, phoenixdreamz, Rex Manning, dolphin777, artisan, mcc777c2, mudslide, Newzie, rrheard, pioneer111, Rumarhazzit, leonard145b, madgranny, ImpeachKingBushII, A Person, zorp, willb48, Empower Ink, bluesweatergirl, slade7, kafkananda, fayeforcure, coachster, rogerdaddy, Devsd, Justus, AnnieJo, Mad Kossack, indeterminate cutlery, Spoonfulofsugar, Shahryar, MikePhoenix, roger in DE, Brandon Friedman, Youffraita, spencerh, Foundmyvoice, Faheyman, SmedleyButlerUSMC, binkaroni, Mannabass, Mother of Zeus, peaceloveandkucinich, Jeff Y, rubine, catly, KttG, Jacques, LCA, media whores, Cobbler, BlueStateRedhead, ShainZona, GoracleFan, DixieDishrag, Fallon, CatfishBlues, HoosierDeb, Leo in NJ, ZhenRen, rubyclaire, tunney, snackdoodle, Good Hope Road, BBelle, rudy23, magne, the voice of reason among raving lunatics

    Photobucket

        •  What does that mean, though? (66+ / 0-)

          No universal heath care.

          Pro-Nuclear.

          Pro-Coal.

          Calling unions special interests.

          Holding hands with republicans.

          Sorry.  What you call change is simply a fantasy.  The symbolism of an African American president would replace real change.

          That's all.  Yeah, better than Bush, but what a low standard.  

          If you are still in college, I hope you enjoy the McJob waiting for you in the Two Americas.

          "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

          by TomP on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There isn't much difference between the 2 (27+ / 0-)

            Obama and Edwards have modest differences between  their plans. Obama's voting record is more progressive than Edwards' was. However, they weren't in office at the same time so it's hard to compare.

            You are exaggerating the political differences between Edwards and Obama.

            "It's the planet, stupid."

            by FishOutofWater on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  BINGO! (4+ / 0-)

              Not only is it "hard to compare," it's downright DISHONEST to compare and that's what Obama has asked us to do.

            •  Might compare.... (4+ / 0-)

              .......these apples!

              with

              ...........these oranges!

              As 'they' always say: 'Follow the money stupid!'

              'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

              by Nestor Makhnow on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:21:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Obama Has a Profound Commitment (8+ / 0-)

              to restoring our Constitutional Protections.  I am confident we will or would be pleased w/his answers.  He is the only one who has been dedicated to Voting Rights & Ethics Reform and spoken out strongly about Bush's disgusting distortion of our Governmental Balance and ignoring of the Constitution.

              He is, after all, a Constitutional Law Professor and Civil & Voting Rights Community Organizer!!!

              •  The Con Law prof didn't stand in the well w/ Dodd (16+ / 0-)

                when Dodd was fighting against retroactive immnunity for telecos.  The Con Law prof's first post here told us not to complain about the Dems who rolled over on the Roberts nomination (and then rolled over again on Scalito a few months later).

                I accept the likelihood that I will be jumping aboard the Obama bandwagon in 3 days.  I don't, however, delude myself into thinking that he shares Edwards's passion against corporate greed or Dodd's passion for defending the Constitution.

                Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                by RFK Lives on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Obama has answered this, in a way (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                clyde, KJD, buckhorn okie, LNK, GreyHawk

                last summer, he stated the following:

                WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

                Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

                Read it and weep. Sorry. I'll never forget this, because that's when Obama pretty much lost me.

                Now, if he were to recant this statement, or clearly state that he will go after BushCO if he wins the White House, I might be tempted to change my mind about him.

                But, IMO, it'll be too late anyway. These fuckers need to be impeached while they're still in office, or the precedents they set will be that much harder to undo.

                Reality leaves a lot to the imagination--John Lennon

                by o the umanity on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:12:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'd like to see a movement after the election (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OLinda

                  whoever wins, that would put some intense pressure on the winner to go after the whole Bush/Cheney crime ring, a FULL investigation of anyone and everyone leaving no stone unturned and with the full force of Justice, as in, if they find ANYTHING, they prosecute to the fullest extent they can.

                  I think if Edwards wins, that would be a given but I sincerely doubt that any of the other candidates would actually act on something like this in the absence of intense an unrelenting public outrage and massive protests.

                  Accountability is important, and not just for Republicans.  If the next president is willing to sweep all or even some of the crimes of the Bush years under the rug in the name of "national unity" or some other such silly nonsense, they simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.  The assumption could be made that they'd be just as willing to abuse their power in the same way and hope to get off just as easily.

                  Without accountability, there is no hope for democracy.  In other words, if Bush and his criminal gang are allowed to get off scott free, democracy is already dead.

            •  JRE was more aggressive in seeking labor support (8+ / 0-)

              and he never called unions "special interests."  That's a large difference right there.  As to their voting records, there's a big difference between coming from IL and coming from NC.

              I'm ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon in a little over 72 hours should circumstances dictate that I do so.  I will not, however, pretend that there were not differences in the respective approaches of the 2 candidates.

              As to Buhdy's initial question, I assume it was a rhetorical one.  I think that there's plenty Obama can accomplish, but prosecuting the manifest illegalities of the incumbent WH clearly is not something he will ever even consider.

              Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

              by RFK Lives on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Be careful on the retroactive immunity... (0+ / 0-)

                Government goes to a private business and says "Please help - we need this info now to prevent a terrorist attack."

                Private business refuses because of fears of liability.

                Good or bad?

                The telcos should have immunity.

                Any lawsuits should be against the government.

                •  Bad (0+ / 0-)

                  Whether you meant to or not, it sounds like you're minimizing what the government asked for.  I can accept, on a per case basis, a private firm working with government to prevent a specific threat and acting in an "extra-legal" fashion for a short time to do so...to a point.  But that's not what happened.  The White House went to the telcos and asked to set up long-term, broad-based monitoring of the communications of millions of ordinary Americans without any warrant.  And did so before 9/11!!  F*#@ the telcos.  They knew it was illegal on an unprecedented scale and it doesn't matter what the government said about the program...it was the telcos legal duty to refuse.

                  •  Legal duty? (0+ / 0-)

                    That's an interesting claim.

                    What's even more at issue, however, is if private companies and individual citizens should be at risk of liability for cooperating with the government.

                    For example, if there someone has parked a car in your garage and the cops ask for permission to search it and you say "Go ahead... it's not my car." and let them into the garage can the owner sue you?

                    If it's not a valid search let them sue the police... but I can't see letting them sue you because you did not demand a warrant.

                    I'm not aware of telecom companies having any kind of fiduciary duty to keep their customers' communications secret.

                    •  Quite possibly yes (0+ / 0-)

                      If you were care taking someone's property you have a reasonable duty to safeguard it including taking reasonable measures to prevent trespass.  If you got a request to search this car on your property, I'd ask for a warrant.  

                      --Country before party--

                      by chipoliwog on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:54:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow, won't that make life fun... (0+ / 0-)

                        And then what happens if they get a warrant but it wasn't valid but you didn't challenge it in court?

                        You're basically setting things up so no one with assets can afford to cooperate with the police without getting a legal opinion from a lawyer or being hauled up in front of a judge and threatened with jail time unless he talks right now.

                        •  You think AT&T didn't have lawyers? (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm not sure your analogy is a fair one given that there is no indiation AT&T was shown any pretense of a warrant.  And this is no doubt the first time they've been asked to cooperate with authorities.  They have lawyers who are very well-versed with the constitutional issues regarding the services they provide.  

                          I'll grant you that a small-time operator may find him or herself in a bind if they cooperate with the government without first getting legal council. But none of the companies in question count as "small-time."  And the fact that one such firm refused is all I need to know regarding whether such refusal poses too great a burden on these giant corporations.

                •  FISA (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LNK

                  The FISA court was a very reasonable setup for the government to request Judicial permission for case by case activities. The process was simple and in most cases the requests were approved.

                  It is essential to remember that it is the checks and balances that are the cornerstone of our system  of government. It is the brazen attempt by this regime to distort or eliminate all forms of accountability that is at issue.  The Private firms are and should have been well versed in their responsibility to safeguard the private information of its customers even from Government intrusion.  They should be liable and at the very least such liability will serve as a warning to any other company or persons that would be so careless in the future.

                  --Country before party--

                  by chipoliwog on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:00:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pls explain your theory (0+ / 0-)

                    To begin with, have you signed a contract with your telecom carrier guaranteeing privacy of your phone calls?

                    If not, then what's special about them compared to anyone else?

                    If a cop asks your neighbor about suspicious noises coming from your house and he doesn't demand a court order requiring him to talk is he equally liable?

                    •  It is illegal (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LNK

                      for the government to spy on your private communications without your knowledge and without a warrant, it's called illegal search and seizure.

                      Just because you didn't sign a contract with your telecom company to guarantee your privacy does not make it legal for the government to spy on you without your knowledge.  You don't have to sign that contract because those protections are implied in the law.  The contract you imply would be redundant.

                      Nice try though.  And nice try at trying to equate the cops asking your neighbor a few questions to Bush illegally spying on millions of Americans.

                      And your cop-asking-the-neighbor-questions scenario is a non sequitur, you're tying to equate apples to oranges.  The proper analogy would be if a cop heard noises coming from your house that he thought were suspicious so he got his buddy that works for the phone company to illegally tap your phone line so he could listen to your conversations to try and determine what you were up to.

                      And yes, if the cop did that without a warrant, he would be liable as would be the phone company hack that helped him do it without requiring the proper warrant to tap the phone.  And if you actually WERE up to something and the cop found evidence to that effect by illegally listening in to your conversations, you couldn't be prosecuted because of the tainted way that the evidence was uncovered.  So acting unethically and illegally is a far greater jeopardy to defeating terrorism than is following the rule of law and doing the right thing.

                      Why do you feel so compelled to apologize for Bush's criminal behavior?

                      •  Fascinating... implications... (0+ / 0-)

                        Just because you didn't sign a contract with your telecom company to guarantee your privacy does not make it legal for the government to spy on you without your knowledge.

                        Note that you are mixing the role of the government and the telephone company and at the same time you are very confused about what the government can and cannot do.

                        It is certainly legal for the government to spy on you without your knowlege if they get a warrant or if they satisfy any of the exceptions that the courts have ruled do not need a warrant.  (For example, if a policeman is hiding outside your window with a cup to his ear listening to you on the phone through the wall he needs no warrant.)

                        In addition, any conversations you have outside the US do not require a warrant to spy on.  Conversations that are between you in the US and a second party who is outside the US are a grey area with unclear constitutional status.

                        In addition, even if it is illegal for the government to spy on a particular conversation without a warrant that does not mean that it is illegal for a telephone company to facilitate such spying.

                        You don't have to sign that contract because those protections are implied in the law.  The contract you imply would be redundant.

                        Under US law you don't get to sue people based on what is "implied" by the law.  You have to sue based on what is actually in the law.  This is part of the concept of "Rule of Law".  People have to be able to act based on what is actually written in the law, not based on speculation on what various people may believe is implied by a law.

                        And nice try at trying to equate the cops asking your neighbor a few questions to Bush illegally spying on millions of Americans.

                        Well, first off, the lawsuits are not against Bush or against the Federal Government.  They are against the telcos.  You seem to be unclear on this.

                        Secondly, a tort is a tort.  If a telco is commiting a tort against you by assisting in a search without a warrant then how is your neighbor not equally liable if he lets the police do something like setting up a listening post inside his house that they use to eavesdrop on your communications or letting them into a shared garage that has your car in it?

                        If you are going to allow lawsuits against the telcos how do you avoid allowing lawsuits against the neighbor except by waving your hands in the air and yelling "but that's different!"?

                        Why do you feel so compelled to apologize for Bush's criminal behavior?

                        First off, I haven't apologized for Bush's behavior.  I have stated that I think that any lawsuits should be against the Federal Government, not the telcos.

                        Second, it is far from clear that Bush's behavior is criminal.  I think you should read the Fourth Amendment since I don't think you actually know what it says.

                        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                        Frankly, this is horrible drafting - what the Hell is an "unreasonable" search and seizure?  Who gets to decide?  There is clearly no requirement that all searches have a warrant and, in fact, no court has ever suggested that warrants should always be required.  

                        Finally, even if we accept the Exclusionary Rule (which is certainly not mandated by the Constitution) the goal of terrorism intercepts is often not to obtain evidence.  Instead the information obtained may be passed to foreign countries or used by the United States to capture or kill terrorists or to prevent attacks.  In such cases the Exclusionary Rule is irrelevant.

                        •  You say: (1+ / 0-)

                          In addition, even if it is illegal for the government to spy on a particular conversation without a warrant that does not mean that it is illegal for a telephone company to facilitate such spying.

                          Then tell me why the telecoms need immunity.

                          •  Because they are being sued (0+ / 0-)

                            Note that you can be sued for actions that are not illegal.

                            For example, medical malpractice is not illegal.  But it is a tort.

                            In this case, it may not ben be a tort.  However, the telephone companies may have to spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars defending themselves.  This will obviously discourage other companies and individuals from cooperating with any government investigation even if the telephone companies eventually win - the cost of defending the suits will probably exceed any damages that might be levied against the phone companies.

                            This is the purpose of these suits and that is why the government has an interest in giving the telcos immunity.

                          •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                            Your logic assumes that there is not a valid reason for the telecoms to be sued and therefore, they shouldn't have to pay all that money to defend themselves.

                            If I get sued, I'm sure it will cost me a lot more money proportionally to defend myself, irrespective of what it is I'm being sued for.  Should the cost of that litigation preclude a lawsuit against me or anyone else?  And why doesn't the government step in and grant immunity to everyone that gets sued?  No lawsuit is cheap to defend.

                          •  Reading comprehension is an acquired skill. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your logic assumes that there is not a valid reason for the telecoms to be sued and therefore, they shouldn't have to pay all that money to defend themselves.

                            In this case, it may not ben be a tort.  However, the telephone companies may have to spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars defending themselves.  This will obviously discourage other companies and individuals from cooperating with any government investigation even if the telephone companies eventually win - the cost of defending the suits will probably exceed any damages that might be levied against the phone companies.

                            Do you understand the word "may"?  As in "it may not have been a tort"?

                            Clearly my logic does not assume that there is not a valid reason for the telecoms to be sued.  I say it may not have been a tort, which obviously also means that it may have been a tort.

                            Key point is that tort or not, allowing such suits may be contrary to public policy.  

                            The government has an interest in allowing private citizens and companies to assist in criminal investigations without fear of being sued.  People whose privacy is violated obviously have an interest in suing to obtain damages.  The obvious solution is for the government to immunize anyone who assists in an investigation and, instead, require that any suits about invasion of privacy in an investigation be brought against the government.

                            This preserves the right of individuals to sue if they are damaged while preventing people from being penalized for assisting the government.

                            If I get sued, I'm sure it will cost me a lot more money proportionally to defend myself, irrespective of what it is I'm being sued for.  Should the cost of that litigation preclude a lawsuit against me or anyone else?  And why doesn't the government step in and grant immunity to everyone that gets sued?  No lawsuit is cheap to defend.

                            The government has no particular interest in protecting you from being sued if someone slips on your sidewalk and breaks a leg.  The government does have an interest in protecting you from being sued if your actions were to assist in a government activity and were peformed at the request of the government.

                        •  Oh so may things... (0+ / 0-)

                          If a telco is commiting a tort against you by assisting in a search without a warrant then how is your neighbor not equally liable if he lets the police do something like setting up a listening post inside his house that they use to eavesdrop on your communications or letting them into a shared garage that has your car in it?

                          Ah, but now you're changing your story.  First, it was just the cop asking a few questions of a neighbor, now it's the neighbor letting the cop in to set up a "listening post", whatever that is, or letting the cop into a shared garage.

                          Still apples to oranges.

                          If you are going to allow lawsuits against the telcos how do you avoid allowing lawsuits against the neighbor except by waving your hands in the air and yelling "but that's different!"?

                          LOL!  Because that IS different!  You changed your story!  Try to be consistent, will ya?

                          Second, it is far from clear that Bush's behavior is criminal.

                          Granting immunity to the telecoms will effectively preemptively prevent anyone from every being able to make that determination, or to even investigate.

                          Frankly, this is horrible drafting - what the Hell is an "unreasonable" search and seizure?  Who gets to decide?

                          Yes, the founding fathers were surely idiots.  Please.  The courts make that decision.  But what you're suggesting - telecom immunity - means that the courts will never get the opportunity to make that decision because there will be no investigation, the book will be closed.

                          Also please explain to me why is it so imperative to grant immunity before we even know the extent of the telecoms' and the Bush "administration's" crimes and illegality?  Let me answer that for you: it is NEVER a good idea to preemptively grant immunity for a crime when it isn't know what crime was committed.

                          Immunity can still be granted after a complete and thorough investigation.  Why not wait until we know exactly what crimes were committed before we pass judgment on whether or not those crimes deserve to be pardoned in the name of national security?  Why the rush?

                          That's true of any "immunity", it is quite simply bone-headed stupid to let someone off the hook before you even know what hook they're on.

                          •  "Because" is not an argument (0+ / 0-)

                            If a telco is commiting a tort against you by assisting in a search without a warrant then how is your neighbor not equally liable if he lets the police do something like setting up a listening post inside his house that they use to eavesdrop on your communications or letting them into a shared garage that has your car in it?  

                            If you are going to allow lawsuits against the telcos how do you avoid allowing lawsuits against the neighbor except by waving your hands in the air and yelling "but that's different!"?

                            LOL!  Because that IS different!  You changed your story!  Try to be consistent, will ya?

                            You need to explain a legal theory that distinguishes between these cases.  Just saying "Because that IS different" is not an argument.

                            For example, the Supreme Court has distinguished between the cop under your window eavesdropping from a bug placed inside your window by claiming that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy for conversations that are only audible within your house but no reasonable expectation of privacy for a conversation that can be heard from outside your house even if only by pressing your ear up against the wall with the help of a glass.

                            That's a reasonably clear distinction, not just "Because that IS different".

                            Can you provide any similar theory?

                            Otherwise, once the precedent is set your neighbor is at risk.

                          •  In your own words: (0+ / 0-)

                            ...a cop asks your neighbor about suspicious noises coming from your house...

                            Does not equal:

                            ...the cop under your window eavesdropping from a bug placed inside your window...

                            Or:

                            ...a conversation that can be heard from outside your house even if only by pressing your ear up against the wall with the help of a glass.

                            Or are you suggesting otherwise?

                          •  All cases have some differences in fact patterns (0+ / 0-)

                            What you need to provide is a legal theory - an explanation for where you draw the line between assistance that can get you sued and that can't.

                            If there is no line and everything is case by case then any assistance can get you sued and no lawyer can provide any advice to a client other than "It all depends on what judge you happen to get.  So if you want any kind of safety just say no."

                            For example, there are tons of legal tests that define what kinds of searches without warrants are and are not illegal.

                            One example that is extremely relevant here is border searches.  

                            The Supreme Court has ruled

                            ''That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration.''

                            It seems reasonable (as in "reasonable search", therefore "not unreasonable") to extend this reasonaing to telecommunications across the border.  And, in fact, the lawsuits in question are about telecom intercepts aimed at phonecalls that were either originating and terminating outside the United States but that passed through the United States or that had one party outside the United States but that may also have included calls that originated and terminated inside the United States but that passed through parts of the network that also are used by international calls.

                            If you investigate this further you will discover that there are a slew of cases that further refine these tests and define how intrusive a border search can be, how close it needs to be to the border, what level of assurance the government needs that the person being searched actually crossed the border, etc.

                          •  Your intellect is truly dizzying (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jnhobbs

                            First you say:

                            Frankly, this is horrible drafting - what the Hell is an "unreasonable" search and seizure?  Who gets to decide?

                            Then you say:

                            ...there are tons of legal tests that define what kinds of searches without warrants are and are not illegal.

                            You're debating yourself.  So I'm going to stop wasting my time trying to.

                          •  Deliberately stupid? Or just stupid? You decide. (0+ / 0-)

                            The legal tests I refer to are not in the Constitution.  They were formulated by the Supreme Court pretty much out of whole cloth.

                            I notice that you are still totally unable to articulate why the telcos should not be immune to suits for assisting in information gathering by the government but ordinary citizens should be.

                            You still have nothing better than "But that's different!"

                          •  Nice. (0+ / 0-)

                            When you resort to ad hominem attacks, you really expose the weakness of your arguments.  I'm not sure who you are or why you're here on this particular blog defending those poor telecoms with your right-wing talking points, you appear to be a troll so I'm going to stop feeding you except for this.

                            You want better articulation?  I couldn't put it much better than this:

                            http://www.dailykos.com...

                          •  I note three points... (0+ / 0-)

                            First, ad hominem refers to using personal attacks on the poster to attack his comments - for example, claiming that Democracy Inaction's posts should be disregarded because he is stupid.  Instead, I am claiming that Democracy Inaction is either genuinely stupid or deliberately stupid because his posts are stupid.  Not ad hominem.  Buy a dictionary.

                            Secondly, the post you have referred to does not articulate any response to the points I have raised.

                            Finally, the post you have referred to is just sadly ignorant.  For example, it claims that a lawsuit could reveal illegal actions by Bush.  Obviously false - it's a civil suit against the telcos.  It is highly unlikely that they would be able to get confidential government docs that were not given to the telcos during the discovery process (since any such docs would not be relevant to the suit) and insanely unlikely that anything they get would have been signed or written by Bush.

                          •  You need to think clearly... (0+ / 0-)

                            Second, it is far from clear that Bush's behavior is criminal.

                            Granting immunity to the telecoms will effectively preemptively prevent anyone from every being able to make that determination, or to even investigate.

                            Whether or not Bush or the Federal Government broke the law will not be an issue in any law suit against the telcos.

                            If you want to get a determination that the government broke the law you need to sue them.

                            This reverses your argument - by giving the telcos immunity and forcing any injured parties to sue the government you make a determination of whether or not the government broke the law more likely, not less.

                            Frankly, this is horrible drafting - what the Hell is an "unreasonable" search and seizure?  Who gets to decide?

                            Yes, the founding fathers were surely idiots.  Please.  The courts make that decision.

                            Based on what?  Personal prejudices?

                            The Founding Fathers were not idiots but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were produced through a political process that including negotiation, compromise, and political horse trading.  This resulted at times in poorly written and unclear clauses.  Another great example of this is the Second Amendment.

                            Also please explain to me why is it so imperative to grant immunity before we even know the extent of the telecoms' and the Bush "administration's" crimes and illegality?  Let me answer that for you: it is NEVER a good idea to preemptively grant immunity for a crime when it isn't know what crime was committed.

                            You seem unclear on the difference between a tort and a crime.  No one has suggested giving anyone immunity for any crimes.  What is being suggested is giving the telcos immunity from lawsuits.  That is very different.

                            None of your other arguments apply since they are based on whether immunity shall be granted for crimes.

                            The argument for granting immunity from lawsuits is that even if the telcos win they will have to spend so much money to defend themselves that it will deter all future cooperation by anyone with the government for any investigation.

                            What company is going to risk being sued and having to spend millions on legal fees for helping out a criminal investigation?  You will see all companies in the US amending their employee handbooks to say "You shall not provide any information to any government agency or government official including law enforcement that is in any way related to your official duties or to information you acquired while on duty unless instructed to do so by our legal department or ordered to do so by a Court with competent jurisdiction.  Failure to follow these instructions will be result in discipline up to and including termination."

                •  You are 100% wrong (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OLinda, LNK

                  And you are fear-mongering and using GOP talking points.  I suspect you are probably a concern troll, but let me lay it out for you: you've built a nice strawman but that's what your argument is.  It might make for a good episode of 24 but it's just not a realistic scenario.

                  There is a right and a wrong way for the government to ask you for something.  If they need for you to turn over records that you know you shouldn't turn over without a warrant, you ask for a warrant.  Period.  that's what Qwest did.  If you're not sure, you ask your lawyer, that's why companies hire lawyers, to advise them on these kinds of matters.

                  And that protects you.  If you get a warrant and turn over information, then you've done nothing wrong and cannot be held liable.  And the warrant court has denied so few such warrants since it has been in existence that it is ludicrous to think that the government wouldn't get any warrant approved that they ask for or that it wouldn't be approved quickly enough.

                  The rule of law exists for a reason and if we throw it out the window simply because we're afraid, then the terrorists really have won.

                  Or as Ben Franklin once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

                  The telecoms KNEW they were breaking the law and they did it anyway.  They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law will allow with as severe penalties are warranted without regard to how those penalties will impact the businesses.  They broke the law and should be no less accountable for it than any private citizen.

                  •  So always ask for a warrant? (0+ / 0-)

                    So, for example, if I own a convenience store and I have security cameras outside and the cops come to me and say "Someone got their bag snatched outside your store last night.  Can we review the tapes?" I am supposed to ask for a warrant?

                    In actual fact, this is a totally routine request that the police make of thousands of business and that almost never requires a warrant or a court order.

                    Of course if we set the kinds of precedents that you are asking for it quickly would require a warrant or a court order - why should a store owner risk being sued?  That would increase the cost of investigations and would clog up the courts so more minor crimes would get dropped.

                    The telecoms KNEW they were breaking the law and they did it anyway.  They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law will allow with as severe penalties are warranted without regard to how those penalties will impact the businesses.  They broke the law and should be no less accountable for it than any private citizen.

                    That's an interesting claim.  Can you specify the law they broke?

                    There are definitely laws that limit the government's ability to do certain types of surveillance but do you know if they criminalize acts by private parties who assist the government?

                    Anyway, the proposed immunity law has nothing to do with criminal prosecution so this doesn't seem to be an argument against it.

                •  Here's a hypothetical for you: (0+ / 0-)

                  George Bush knocks on your door, when you answer he tells you that your next door neighbor is a terrorist that is about to commit a terrorist attack.  He hands you a gun and instructs you to go over to your neighbor's house and shoot him in the head, killing him, which will prevent the terrorist attack.

                  What do you do?

                  •  Ask for a warrant of course! (0+ / 0-)

                    And then if they give me the warrant I go over and shoot my neighbor in the head, right?

                    Hmmm... wait a minute...  there's something wrong here.

                    Maybe this isn't actually the same case at all?

                    •  It's not different at all (0+ / 0-)

                      from your original "24" fear-mongering scenario in general terms, which is that the government asks you to do something that you suspect is illegal but the purpose is to thwart a terrorist attack and the clock is ticking.

                      Your, and George Bush's and the GOP's the telecoms' position is that since the government asked you to do it, you shouldn't be held liable.  

                      Why would the same logic not apply?

            •  Modest differences? Modest? (5+ / 0-)

              WTF bro?

              O'Bama is a uniter.

              Edwards declares we have to "take their power away from them."

              Given the rhetoric, I think I have more faith in the guy willing to tell the powers-that-be that he is coming after them vs. a guy who wants to "unite" and "work together".

              I would have a much easier time believing in O'Bama as an agent of change if he would begin articulating who our enemies are (those arrayed against change;  corporate interests, etc.) - and state he is coming after them.

              Granted, perhaps Edwards is simply using rhetoric and has no intention of changing the status quo;  However, I'll have more faith in a guy who comes out saying he is going to go after the special interests / corporate interests vs. a guy who says he wants everyone to "work together".

              On the flipside, perhaps O'Bama's talk of being a "uniter" is his version of a sucker-punch;  Signal you aren't going to "upset the apple cart", then once in power, go after those very people you were going to have at your table.  If O'Bama wins, I certainly hope this is the case.  

              If it isn't, and O'Bama wins... we will have little more than symbolism.

              Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

              by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  When Obama talks about being a uniter (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chi, DrMicro

                He is talking about Uniting the PEOPLE against the special interests. He does not have any illusions that the congressional republicans are going to just roll over and do what he says. What he is talking about is getting a mandate from the people to get things done and  affect change from the bottom up. He is talking about Us taking our govt back.

                 

                "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                by atlliberal on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:53:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If that is what he means.. then I wouldhave much (3+ / 0-)

                  more faith in him.  

                  If you have any links handy of speeches he has made where he talks about uniting people against corporate interests... I would love to have them.  My big thing with Edwards is that he doesn't water-down his message:  He states who the enemy is and that he is going after them.  

                  I would love to see the same thing from O'Bama and if there are any examples you can provide where his rhetoric matches the aggressive tone of Edwards I would greatly love to see them.  It would definitely go a long way towards exciting me more about an O'Bama candidacy.

                  Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

                  by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:25:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The tone is different (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Chi

                    The message is very similar.The question is, which tone is more effective? Is it more effective to demand something, or to quietly ask and work on getting it.  It sort of reminds me of what my mom used to always say "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

                     Barack Obama came right out and said tonight that what he is talking about is uniting the People to get the big things done, in spite of the special interests. I've heard him say these things before. But I think alot of people are misunderstanding what he means by uniting the country. He's talking about uniting the people behind his agenda, not talking to the special interests hoping they will play nice. Look up the video of the speech he gave after winning Iowa. Very powerful. Many of the speeches he has given are on his website. I'll try to  find a link if you'd like for specific ones.

                    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                    by atlliberal on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:06:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I understand your point about (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      buckhorn okie

                      "catch more flies with honey than vinegar.."

                      However, corporate interests are not interested in negotiating.  They are interested in adding shareholder value - with no concerns for ethics or morals.  You do not negotiate with your enemies - you crush them.

                      I'll go to his website as your suggested and watch some of his speeches -  perhaps I've missed something.  

                      But you do understand why I prefer a candidate who states openly he will go on the attack?  I don't believe you can negotiate either with Republicans or Corporate America.  Hell, our own Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Reid, can't even resist pushing for telecomm immunity.  

                      We've had years and years in which we've tried to play nice (DLC, anyone?) - and it hasn't gotten us anything but shit.  Even having an unquestionable majority status in the House, we still get nothing but shit.

                      Why is that?  Where are our fighters?  There can be no negotiation / capitulation.  You negotiate with Republicans or Corporate America and you will lose.  They play to win and advance their agenda and they do not give ground..

                      If O'Bama is truly a people's candidate then he should be able to go on the attack without worrying about fallout;  After all, if the people are backing him why does he need to play nice with Republicans or Corporate America?  Screw both.  It's time to fight back.

                      Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

                      by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:52:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I do understand your point (0+ / 0-)

                        But Obama understands too, and  he is trying to do it a different way completely. If the dem candidate were to win with 50% +1, we would have the same situation we do now. We would still  not be able to accomplish much because the corporations and special interests would still have power. But if Obama gets Dems, Independants, and some republicans to vote for him to accomplish big things, he has a mandate from the people to get it done, and it's alot harder for the special interests to stop it. He is under no illusion that they won't still try to stop him. But he will be in a much stronger position to fight them if he has the backing of a majority of the people, and a larger majority in congress to work with.
                        Don't mistake negotiation with capitulation. I know it's hard after the last few years of congress, but in reality, when you are negotiating from a position of strength, it's very easy to get the other side to see things your way. It's also alot easier to get them to see things your way if you aren't yelling at them and demanding they see things your way. MY way or the highway does not work in the long run.

                        Why is that?  Where are our fighters?  There can be no negotiation / capitulation.  You negotiate with Republicans or Corporate America and you will lose.  They play to win and advance their agenda and they do not give ground..

                        If O'Bama is truly a people's candidate then he should be able to go on the attack without worrying about fallout;  After all, if the people are backing him why does he need to play nice with Republicans or Corporate America?  Screw both.  It's time to fight back.

                        It is possible to attack the issues without even having to attack the corporations or worry about the republicans. If they won't give in, and you have a majority of the people, and a large majority in the congress, THEY lose. It's not playing nice or capitulating to get as many on your side as possible, to get something done.If you are also playing to win, and advancing your agenda,with a strong majority,  they can't win.

                        "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan

                        by atlliberal on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  What? (23+ / 0-)

            Edwards supporters are getting despicable on this site.

            Hillary Clinton claims that Obama's health care plan won't be universal. Way to pick up on that one.

            I'm an environmental engineering PhD candidate, and I can tell you that I (as well as most mainstream environmentalists) are Pro-Nuclear. Especially on the 4th Generation plants. In case you don't know (which you clearly do not), 4th generation plants use Combined Heat and Power (CHP) to produce hydrogen for fuel cells. There are many other advantages.

            Obama supports liquefied coal, as long as it is produced at 20% of its current emissions. By the way, do you know exactly what liquefied coal is, and why it's better than regular coal? What about how it could possibly be produced and used at zero emissions?

            Unions are special interest groups. Sure, Obama might try to soften that statement, but they are. The Left and the Right have special interest groups that claim to be the interest of everyone, while their detractors claim they aren't. It's politics. Something not qualifying as a special interest group would probably be seen everywhere. Unions are not, and will never be. I'm not being nasty, it's just a fact.

            Just because someone has different political views does not mean you shun them everywhere, everytime. That, my friend, is change. If Obama smiles at Bush, holds Bush's hand (shudder), or any other Republican's hand... it doesn't matter. I have Republicans in my family (no!) ... should I lift my nose at them during family reunions?

            Obama is way better than Bush. Clinton is way better than Bush. Edwards is way better than Bush.

            Stop this silly partisanship and open your narrow mind to a little optimism. Then, you will know change.

            •  If you are... (7+ / 0-)

              ..."an environmental engineering PhD candidate" may I ask you why nuclear and coal are so far superior to natural alternatives like wind, solar, tidal, etc?

              •  Just because (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Porfiry, jamesia

                a candidate sees the advantages of modern Nuclear power does not preclude them from embracing even more environmentally cleaner forms of power, does it?

                ___
                To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought.
                ~Tom Robbins

                Conlige suspectos semper habitos

                by Marcus Junius Brutus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No it makes them politically stupid. It will (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LNK, BBelle

                  divide the party and the left if nuke power is pursued vigorously, as well as cause many environmental problems. I hope Obama has the good sense to remember the lessons of the '70's on this one.

                  Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

                  by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:11:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nuclear isn't an ideal solution (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Chi, buckhorn okie, The Termite

                    But the longer we delay on actually dealing with global warming, the more likely it becomes that nuclear will have to be at least part of the solution.

                    Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

                    by Sagebrush Bob on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is exactly it. (5+ / 0-)

                      James Lovelock, who has done more to raise the alarm of environmental degradation than most people, believes that nuclear power is an imperfect yet unavoidable stopgap if we are genuinely looking to slow or stop our carbon footprint in the near future. Given the urgency of the climate change problem, I really don't see that as a bad thing.

                      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

                      by Dale on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm talking about the politics of it. (0+ / 0-)

                      We can argue about the viability of nuke power another time, there are always diaries on the subject.

                      What I'm saying is clear to any objective observer. Put aside your advocacy for the nuke option and it is clear that pursuing it will divide the left and hurt the party big time. It is one thing to consider it in the mix, another to pursue it vigorously. I hope Obama recognizes that, we can't afford to be divided in the next 4 years, over something that divisive, and I garauntee it would be highly divisive.

                      Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

                      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't think so (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        farleftcoast, Sagebrush Bob

                        It will be a bitter pill for some, but the bottom line is that we used to think coal was worse than nuclear and were wrong.    For many people this is already obvious and it wouldn't take much of a public education campaign to point out that most anti-nuke FUD is based on 40 year old technology.  For the people who have devoted decades of their lives to fighting nuclear power it might be more than they can take, and frankly I don't blame them.  

                        It will split the environmental movement, maybe along generational lines.  Hardcore environmentalists are actually not that huge a portion of the democratic party, particularly with  a lot of the deep ecology types having gone to the green party.

                        •  No, there will be a huge NIMBY factor as well (0+ / 0-)

                          as splitting half the party, and we will find 90% of the enviro movement against it.

                          The only place you won't get NIMBY is in the outback of Texas. Not so long ago, nuke plants weren't favored by people living in even very Republican locations. Somehow people don't like getting radiated, how odd.

                          A vigorous pursuit of nuke power would be a huge political mistake, even Bush couldn't shove it down people's throats.

                          The only way to increase nuclear power in this country is to do it very sparingly, and bring in both the technology and builders from other countries who've done it better in coalition with U.S. companies, plus make the process politically transparent-- things the nuke industry doesn't want to do. That means any President would be walking into a giant minefield, even Bush couldn't do it.

                          Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

                          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:48:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If we stall on solutions much longer... (0+ / 0-)

                            it will be nuclear in everyone's back yard. The inaction of our government that may lead us to needing massive use of nuclear power is almost criminal.

                            Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

                            by Sagebrush Bob on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:53:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  transparency (0+ / 0-)

                            have you ever taken a close look at the NRC and DOE websites?

                            http://www.nrc.gov/...
                            http://www.nrc.gov/...
                            http://www.nrc.gov/...
                            http://www.nrc.gov/...
                            http://www.nrc.gov/...

                            http://www.ne.doe.gov/...

                            What you describe is exactly what's going on and it's plenty transparent.  People just don't bother to look until the very last minute when there is already so much invested that it's hard to change anything.  Canadian and Japanese designs are currently up for review.

                            I agree whole heartedly that the best way to do this would be to just break down and pay the Japanese and canadians to bring the US nuclear fleet into the 21st century.  The US nuclear power industry has mostly spent the past 30 years polishing the same old turd.  Reinvesting in the national labs is also a must.  The best technology isn't always the most profitable ones and with research privatization it's the potential for profit that determines research priorities.

                      •  I DO NOT advocate nuclear (0+ / 0-)

                        But the reality is, that we are fast approaching a moment where all the other options combined will be inadequate. That's just reality. It's not pleasant but reality is what it is. It's just one more reason why we need to start taking major action to reduce CO2 emissions without further delay.

                        Nuclear is a bad option but if we continue on our present path for much longer, it will be unavoidable.

                        (It would also be nice to see at least one candidate have the guts to point out that ethanol is a terrible "option.")

                        Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

                        by Sagebrush Bob on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:50:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  They aren't far superior (9+ / 0-)

                Solar power is obviously the best choice out there. The price will never vary, and you can get it almost anywhere. It's just impossible at this point for solar power to produce what we need everywhere. That's why none of the traditional environmental energy alternatives could be a national answer to energy independence. There must be local answers. If you live on the windy plains, use wind turbines. If you live on the sunny desert near Phoenix, use solar power. Stuff like that.

                But things that need significant power, you'd need a nuclear plant. Liquefied petroleum or gas fuels have been used in Britain for a while now, and there are definitely ways to make zero CO2 emissions. There are technologies that make these things safe. Certainly, nothing we have the capability of doing now is 100% environmentally friendly.

                Frankly though, I was not implying that any one source is better than another. I don't think Obama was either. Saying any are "better" is a misconception, because we need all of them.

                •  Another question: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DocbytheBay

                  Where does the coal come from? Do we still have to remove mountaintops?

                  •  Ask John Edwards about that n/t (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Chi
                    •  What does John say about this? n/t (0+ / 0-)
                      •  Not so much what he says, but what he's done. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Chi, Mannabass

                        http://www.grist.org/...

                        Admittedly, Edwards committed a number of environmental voting gaffes early on in his Senate career, which have caused some in the environmental community to say that only very recently has he become a true believer. During his first year in office, 1999, he voted in favor of an amendment to allow mountaintop-removal mining practices. Later, he voted to exempt pickup trucks from fuel-efficiency standards and supported the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (though he has since agreed to support Kerry's position that Yucca shouldn't become a dumping ground). Edwards also voted against an amendment that would have prevented farm subsidies from helping to expand industrial farms, and voted against stricter prohibitions on the use of pesticides in parks.

                        •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Chi

                          But he SAID he'd fight.  He was from a red state he was in a republican congress he's apologized for being a warmonger besides the war is in the past so is his voting record you can't even compare voting records he said he'd fight he's learned alot since 04 when he was against UHC and he said he'd fight.

                          "A movement is accomplished in 6 stages... and the 7th brings return." Syd Barrett 1967

                          by Mannabass on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Surely he's changed his positions... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Fabian, farleftcoast

                          ...on these things since 1999!? Do you have any current information? Boy, things have sure changed in the world in the past 8-9 years! I know I sure know a hell of a lot more about some of these things than I did 8 years ago!

                          P.S. I disagree with expanding industrial farms even today.

                •  If all our energy effort were put to bear... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RFK Lives, Fabian

                  ...on the problem of providing safe, clean energy through natural means, how long do you think it would take to accomplish it? Realistically. How long to get these nuke plants on line? Lots of questions, but you put your credentials out there, and I haven't done the research.

                  •  there's some good stuff here (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fabian, farleftcoast, Mannabass

                    http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/

                    An unfortunate truth is that it's not been uncommon in the past for environmental groups to bend the truth and play fast and lose with science in order to push a political point and raise donations.  I'm talking about Greenpeace.  The result is that there's a lot of rhetoric floating around that's not exactly based in fact.   To have a useful discussion about these issues it's important to figure out exactly what's real and what's not.  

                    The above link is one of the more reality based clean energy sites that I've seen.

                    With the warming denialists trying to nitpick every single fact, it's important that what we say be based in fact.

                •  I don't get the Zero CO2 Emissions from fossil (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  farleftcoast, ImpeachKingBushII

                  fuels.

                  The power derived from fossil fuels is, quite simply, done by oxidizing hydrocarbons, resulting various byproducts including, inevitably, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.  Now, it is possible to somehow create a closed system which removes the CO and CO2 and puts it...somewhere, but the CO and CO2 have been created.

                  In order to split the oxygen from the carbon and create some kind of non global warming substance, you'd need...
                  [drum roll please]
                  energy.

                  I see a possible problem there.

                  No more lies - IMPEACH!

                  by Fabian on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  farleftcoast

                  ... with your reasonable assessment.  Have you read about nano tech solar cells?  Way cheaper to manufacture, way more effective.  They sure look like the wave of the future.  That being said, France gets the majority of their power from nuclear, and in fact, nuclear tech has come so far that it is possible to recycle the waste into more usable fuel.
                  I am not a proponent of nuclear, however you can't just "fight corporations" into making CO2 magically disappear.  Nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming and, with the kind of modern technology that Europe uses, is relatively safe, so therefore must be at least considered in the mix.  Of course, it's easy to say that if we REALLY put our heads to it, we can invent a new sustainable and renewable form of energy.  However, I realistically assume that many fine research facilities have been dedicated to this idea for decades and the people who actually do the research and know the science (as opposed to emotional democratic activists) suggest that it will, most likely take a diverse mix of energy formats and supplies.
                  I don't like it when Bush claims to know more than the scientists of their field, I am certainly not qualified to claim I know more.

                  "A movement is accomplished in 6 stages... and the 7th brings return." Syd Barrett 1967

                  by Mannabass on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:17:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  My lord..I'm even more against Obama now (0+ / 0-)

                  If this is the sort thing his supporters believe.

                  Sorry, but I'm not buying the pro-nuclear energy and pro-CTL positions.

                  Next thing you'll say, the way this is going, is that you think global warming is natural, not man-made.

                  You're sounding very conservative as an environmentalist.

              •  those are not alternatives (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mannabass

                There has not been a single commercially viable prototype for a way to meet baseload capacity using renewable resources.  Not a single one.

              •  Why nuclear wins (0+ / 0-)

                may I ask you why nuclear and coal are so far superior to natural alternatives like wind, solar, tidal, etc?

                Well, wind turbines block the view from Ted Kennedy's vacation home on Cape Cod!

                More seriously, none of these are perfect and all have problems.

                One thing to remember reading below - power transmission is inefficient - you lose power every mile - and power storage is incredibly inefficient.  As much as possible you want to generate power near when it is used and when it is used.

                1. Wind

                  • Wind turbines are huge - yes... they cover much more space than a nuclear plant providing equal power.
                  • They kill birds in large numbers.
                  • There aren't that many good places to put them that are not in wilderness areas that many people don't want cluttered up by huge wind turbines.
                  • You can't count on wind always being there - everywhere has still days.
                2. Solar
                  • Making solar cells requires lots of nasty chemicals
                  • Solar cannot delivery power at night and does a poor job in winter or on cloudy days.
                  • Solar isn't really viable in most of the Northern US and Canada.
                  • The best locations for solar are the American deserts... for example, Death Valley.  These are very environmentally delicate places - it doesn't take much to mess them up.
                3. Tidal
                  • Only an option on the coasts
                  • Cannot deliver constant power - it depends on the tides.
                  • Since they are essentially linear (you need to deploy them off the beaches) you need to use huge swathes of coastline to generate significant power on a national scale.  Again, think about environmental impact.

                All of these technologies have their place, but if we tried to use them to generate significant power on a national scale the environmental impact would be larger than that from nuclear, the cost would be higher, and the reliability would be lower.

            •  Hallelujah (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              boofdah, jamesia

              and Amen.

              ___
              To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought.
              ~Tom Robbins

              Conlige suspectos semper habitos

              by Marcus Junius Brutus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:10:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So we can store the nuclear waste at your house? (5+ / 0-)

              Save the Democratic Party, support John Edwards for president.

              by ichibon on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Does your support for nuclear power (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk, LNK, DocbytheBay

              take into consideration that it takes 18 years of operation for the nuclear plant to generate an equal amount of energy that it took to build the plant?

              •  I'm almost positive (0+ / 0-)

                that without Google, you can't point out the same number for wind turbines or solar panels, or even how many we'd need to equal the energy we use.

                Since you're obviously looking for a "right now" solution, what solution do we have right now that we could switch to in order to produce all the energy we need in a 100% environmentally sound fashion?

              •  that number is coming down (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                polecat

                There are several new designs which have been approved which will greatly increase efficiency and safety.  They just haven't been built yet because it's politically easier to keep renewing the permits for the 1960s era reactors than it is to build new ones.  A lot of the present fleet should have been retired and replaced by now but after three mile island and The China Syndrome it became almost impossible to do that.

              •  Please provide a cite (0+ / 0-)

                Does your support for nuclear power
                take into consideration that it takes 18 years of operation for the nuclear plant to generate an equal amount of energy that it took to build the plant?

                That's very hard to believe because if so then it means that it takes 18 years of power REVENUE just to pay for the energy content of building the plant.

                When you take into account operating costs of the plant on an ongoing basis and the non-power costs of building a plant this means that a nuclear plant could never be profitable.

                Since they are profitable (which is why companies want to build them) your analysis is most likely flawed.

            •  You really know how to charm people (5+ / 0-)

              In case you don't know (which you clearly do not),

              By the way, do you know exactly what liquefied coal is, and why it's better than regular coal?

              Stop this silly partisanship and open your narrow mind to a little optimism

              wow

              Nice of you to deign to pontificate and make us better for having had the benefit of your wisdon.

              Republicans only care about republicans. Democrats care about the Republic.

              by beaukitty on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:30:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I should have toned it down. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oslo, IvanR, beaukitty, malharden, Mannabass

                I'm just tired of this Obama bashing. I know there are many Edwards supporters out there, and I know he's a good guy. But we have a real live uniter here! And to just trash talk him (on things they don't know anything about, no less!) is absolutely despicable. When you get down to it, because it's baseless attacks... it is trash talk.

                I apologize.

                •  Obama is a good guy, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NonnyO, beaukitty

                  He's just not my guy.

                  And since my guy isn't running, I find it hard to really get outraged about much except the truly reprehensible comments.  Otherwise it's "Oh, dear.  Another fight.  I guess the primaries aren't over yet.".

                  No more lies - IMPEACH!

                  by Fabian on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:14:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  the Obama bashing is out of control (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelPH, malharden

                  and is a real injustice. I expected better from my fellow Kossacks.

                •  ARgh!! I don't want a Uniter! I want (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NearlyNormal

                  a FIGHTER.

                  Corporate America does not play fair.  Their idea of unity is operating in a manner which increases "shareholder value", damn everything else.  

                  I do not want them as a partner - I want to go after them in such a way as to make the lack of ethics an expected and known cost - a cost which is greater than the cost of acting irresponsibly.  That's not uniting - that's confrontation.

                  Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

                  by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Please back up statements with links (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk

              I've read that very, very few true environmentalists support nuclear energy development.

              Very, very few endorse coal to liquid development.

              I believe that you're in the minority in your positions among environmentalists, at least among the various national and internationl environmental groups that I belong to.

              As to Obama's support of liquid coal, here's a link that proves those allegations, which is a page on Obama's own web site.

              Yep, it's the Obama-Bunning Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006, reintroduced in 2007, which Obama backed away from due to heavy, massive activism against Obama's bill by activists groups.

          •  What does "fighting" mean? (4+ / 0-)

            What does Edwards mean by that, aside from strongly worded speeches and plans?  No offense meant to him, but the same questions ("what does it mean"?) can be asked of him to.

            •  Allow me to introduce myself, I'm John Doe, CEO. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              farleftcoast

              I've been watching O'Bama and Edwards as of late;  Edwards is railing against corporate interests and saying he will take our power away.  O'Bama claims the mantle of uniter.

              I think we'll be able to do business with this O'Bama character.  

              Edwards?  Screw him.  He clearly doesn't want to be a team player.

              Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

              by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Cut out the premature sour grapes crap (8+ / 0-)

            that frankly reeks of desperation and is counterproductive to the vastly more important goal of electing a DEMOCRAT as president next year. You sound like the supporter of someone whom you already believe will lose and just can't handle it. And adopting the negative attack and smear tactics of Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson to help your guy is not only not going to work, it will only be counterproductive at this point. And if your guy loses and you continue to attack the nominee this viciously and gratuitiously and thus poison the waters, you will not be welcome here for very long.

            I repeat, this site is about electing DEMOCRATS, period, whether or not they're your preferred Democrats. So cut out the attacks, please.

            0101011101100101 010101000110100001100101 010100000110010101101111011100000110110001100101

            by kovie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  "universal health care", my ass (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi, The Termite, Mannabass

            Single payer is simply the only real solution.  Everything else is just a stopgap band-aid.  At least Obama is honest about it.

            •  Tell that to the French... they (0+ / 0-)

              have "Universal Health Care" - and it isn't single payer in every instance (they do have private insurance but the private insurance companies cannot dictate what procedures will / will not be performed).

              Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

              by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  hey I'm jokin' man (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            boofdah, hedgey

            sort of

            Obama and Hope and Change reminds me of Bob Roberts and "Pride".

          •  What's your beef with Nuclear Fission? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            farleftcoast

            It's a great stopgap measure while we get solar and maybe even Fusion on line.  Especially with French Type III/IV reactors.

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            -Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:19:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, that's a big NO. His bi-partissan friends... (0+ / 0-)

          and rhetoric won't let him.

          I mean, how can you be bi-partisan if you prosecute BushCo?  Just let them off and move on (whoops, shouldn't use that phrase, should I?)

          What would Joe Lieberman and friends say?

          VEBO...Vote Every Bum Out

          by ShainZona on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is that the same Lieberman... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi

            ... that Edwards co-sponsored the authorization to invade a country that hadn't done anything to us?
            Oh, I forgot, bipartisianship to sell a bogus war is okay as long as it's Edwards and he's sorry (besides that was so 2003).
            Besides, he'll fight for you.  He'll demand change and then bully anyone who doesn't give in.  
            I wholly support Edwards' current policy (current being the operative word, because the guy has shifted so far to the left from his actual record) but HIS history of bi partisianship is absolutely offensive and the mob mentality that insists on taking everything he says as truth, then insisting that everyone else is lying is patently wrong and unfair.
            And people say Obama supporters are drinking the Koolaid?  Shoot, Edwards could help start a war (with Lieberman and Bush) and his supporters would just rationalize it to death.

            "A movement is accomplished in 6 stages... and the 7th brings return." Syd Barrett 1967

            by Mannabass on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say I'm for Edwards. I am uncommitted.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NonnyO

              but not leaning to Obama because I really don't like his "can't we all just get along" speech.

              I could actually get to the end of this process without liking any candidate - that's a concern I have.

              By the way, didn't Edwards apologize for that vote and admit that he was wrong?

              VEBO...Vote Every Bum Out

              by ShainZona on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  For the record (24+ / 0-)

        I would ask Edwards the same, you might be convinced of his answer, but I'm not! It is FAR from an easy question and would be VERY far from an easy task to do it without blowing up the country.

        •  but again for the record (8+ / 0-)

          Bush can pardon himself and everyone for all past, present and future crimes.  again, it brings up back to Nancy holding up justice.

          I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:48:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He can only pardon as the sitting President (0+ / 0-)

            I believe this was framed as what the Democratic President will do - thus your point is moot.

            "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

            by totallynext on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:12:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And he in no way can pardon himself? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenearth

            Where did that come from?  

            Now if he resigned because of his crimes and the VP is now the Pres - then the new pres can pardon the old pres - but pretty sure a President cannot pardon themselves.  That would slick and kinda silly.

            "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

            by totallynext on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Read the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

              The president's power is absolute.

              Nothing says it does not include himself.

              Indeed, during the Clinton pardon scandals there were some discussions about just how far the pardon power went.  A lot of serious constitutional scholars claimed that even if Clinton set up a bank account and openly offered pardons at $100K a pop he would be acting within his powers as president and there would be nothing that Congress or the Courts could do to stop him other than amending the Constitution.

        •  We've lived through not prosecuting the felons (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OLinda, NonnyO

          in the White House once, uh, twice in my lifetime. As a result those felons came back to work in two other corrupt administrations.

          Whomever is elected President must not sweep the acts of this illegal administration under the rug. Not again!

          Bush and company need to be tried for all the illegality that occurred in this administration and tried for war crimes at The Hague.

      •  No, I don't think Buhdy presumes to know (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billlaurelMD, buhdydharma, LCA

        the answers, nor do I.  Some of these things I KNOW Obama will do.  I doubt anyone that we can elect will prosecute BushCo to the full extent that we believe they should be prosecuted.  We are going to have to continue to make our case to EVERY elected official.

        The reason that I and a lot of other people feel confident in Obama is that he is a brilliant man, he fully and completely understands the law, and he does listen.  What he can achieve, what he has the political muscle to achieve, no one can predict fully.  Nor could we if it were Edwards surging right now.  One thing I feel confident in is that either of those two understands and would want to prosecute BushCo.  Hillary, I'm not so sure about . . .

        And although it probably doesn't need saying:  No, you don't know the answers either.

      •  No, Tom, we don't know the answers. (7+ / 0-)

        And Congressional investigations play a role too.

        None of us know how the next president will respond to these questions.

        "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:47:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I hope. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MantisOahu

        That a Democratic candidate that has the plans outlined for taking our country back is chosen President of the United States by the informed and intellegent of our country.

        Another day, another devalued Dollar. -6.00, -6.21

        by funluvn1 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:54:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How timely (12+ / 0-)

      I was ravelling with a co-worker last week and we were discussing the same thing -- or at least hoped for the same commitment from the Democratic nominee: will you prosecute?

      I want to know.

      Chaos. It's not just a theory.

      by PBnJ on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:18:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I support Obama (9+ / 0-)

        but part of my "hope" for him is that he makes an example out of the Bush administration for people worldwide to see. I want him to prosecute the crap out of every single one those dictator wannabe's just to show everyone that America will not stand for leaders who piss on the very Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.

        •  Dream on. (3+ / 4-)
          Recommended by:
          RNinNC, tr4nqued, Predictor
          Hidden by:
          Wee Mama, jhecht, Mannabass, Jeff Y

          Hell, if Bush did get prosecuted, Obama would probably pardon him.  We have to look forward and all that horsesh*t, you know.

          •  what makes you say that Obama would pardon him (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi, serrano, Mannabass, Mother of Zeus

            I will wait for this one.

            I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:46:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll bite! (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chi, cato, BobzCat, Mannabass

              Pure and unadulterated bias, that's what.  There is, of course, not a shred of a basis for that statement.  Honestly, the things people on this site are willing to put their names to . . .

            •  Obama's strength is his centrist appeal (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OLinda, farleftcoast, Predictor

              and his conservative temperament. The New Yorker (in a flattering piece) profiled him in May 2007 as The Conciliator:

              Obama’s drive to compromise goes beyond the call of political expediency—it’s instinctive, almost a tic. "Barack has an incredible ability to synthesize seemingly contradictory realities and make them coherent," Cassandra Butts says.

              Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) says in same article:

              This is part of who he is really deep down, and it’s an amazing skill. It’s not always the right skill: the truth doesn’t always lie somewhere in the middle. But I think at this moment America is in a situation where we agree much more than we think we do. I know this from polling data—we feel divided in racial terms, religious terms, class terms, all kinds of terms, but we exaggerate how much we disagree with each other. And that’s why I think he’s right for this time."

              He doesn't like discord (from same piece):

              Obama is always disappointing people who feel that he gives too much respect or yields too much ground to the other side, rather than fighting aggressively for his principles. "In law school, we had a seminar together and Charles Fried, who is very conservative, was one of our speakers," Cassandra Butts says. "The issue of the Second Amendment came up and Fried is pretty much a Second Amendment absolutist. One of our classmates was in favor of gun control—he’d come from an urban environment where guns were a big issue. And, while Barack agreed with our classmate, he was much more willing to hear Fried out—he was very moved by the fact that Fried grew up in the Soviet bloc, where they didn’t have those freedoms. After the class, our classmate was still challenging Fried and Barack was just not as passionate and I didn’t understand that."

            •  Maybe a bit of hyperbole, but... (5+ / 0-)

              Every time Obama says "post-partisan" or "reach across the aisle", I hear "capitulate" and "refuse to hold accountable".

              I just think that he fundamentally Does Not Get It.  He speaks of compromising with people who will not compromise under any circumstances.  He wants to build bridges with people who have no other purpose than to knife him in the back as viciously as they possibly can.  Everything I see from him tells me that he's going to get played by the GOP just like GWB got played by Putin.

              I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think so.  The more he talks, the more I think Obama is the best President the GOP can hope for this time around (since all their own candidates completely suck).

              (And for the record, I was for Dodd, now I'm not for anybody in particular - my preferences don't matter, since the Rubber-Stamp State is going to make sure it's Obama anyway.)

              •  I don't think Obama's idea (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RNinNC

                of reaching across the isle includes BushCo.

                •  Unfortunately (4+ / 0-)

                  Everyone currently on the other side of the aisle is part and parcel of BushCo.

                  If there were still "reasonable Republicans", then I would think that Obama's schtick might have a chance of being successful.  But the sorts of folks whom could be reached have long since been driven out of the GOP by DeLay and his cronies.  If Obama tries to reach out to this bunch, all he'll get is his hand cut off in return.

                  And that's what he just simply doesn't seem to understand.  Or else he's planning to go along with whatever the Republicans want, which is what their idea of "compromise" is.  Either way doesn't do much to endear Obama to me.

                  •  It's Political Judo (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Empower Ink

                    The real difference will be whether the Dem candidate can produce "coattails."  If there are 60 dems in the Senate, then there is no Republican minority to "capitulate" to.  

                    Through his message that he is willing to listen across the aisle, Obama is presenting the kind of non-threatening image that won't scare blue dog Dems and independents (and even some moderate Repubs) from voting for him.   And that means, in many cases, that those same voters will have to register as Democrats and, in so doing, begin receiving the Democratic Party word - increasing the chances that Dems will reach that magic number in the Senate - 60.   Further, the GOP cannot run AGAINST Obama in congressional races -- BECAUSE his message is conciliatory and pragmatic.   He's not a bomb-throwing idealogue, so the GOP cannot scare the voters into splitting their vote between  a Dem President and a GOP Congress.  

                    •  Nice theory (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      NonnyO, Predictor

                      Naive, but nice.  I don't think they'll have too much trouble finding a way to demonize Obama, who will be portrayed as a closet Muslim terrorist and first cousin of Saddam Hussein etc etc etc by the time November rolls around.

                      I strongly suspect that the guy is actually exactly what he sounds like - a conservative Blue Dog who is not going to make any meaningful changes to the status quo and who has no idea what he's facing from the opposition.  The Obamafia can project all their hopes and dreams onto him as much as they like, but what they want him to be and what he's shown himself to be so far are two completely different creatures.

                      Of course, I could be wrong, and hopefully I am.

              •  I don't know why this concept (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chi, Wee Mama, Empower Ink

                is so difficult to grasp, but we are engaged in a political campaign. During political campaigns, politicians describe how they would like to run their upcoming term.

                Obama's rhetoric and approach to his political opponents at this point is obviously resonating with large swaths of the electorate, left, right, and center.  

                ONce his term starts, if elected, he can try compromise, but if it doesn't he can smile, say "i tried," and calmly twist the knife and get his legislation passed.  

                We're going to still be controlling all three branches of government people, the fillibster will literally be the only weapon at the republican's disposal.  They can join in the legislative process or they'll get knocked the fuck out of the way!

                Obama's not going to sit underneath his desk crying about how mean the republicans are.  Wake up and smell the oBAMa!

          •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RNinNC, Wee Mama

            I've never heard that line of BS before but then again I don't watch Fixed News.

            •  This Seems Like an Opinion (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              farleftcoast, Predictor

              and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus, I think a good thread has grown from his comment and that everyone should be able to read it.

              NOT uprating it because it comes off as "anti-Obama". I'm quickly warming to the man, and will support ANY Democrat in the General. But, as I said below, I don't think that ANY of our guys are gonna take action against BushCo in the end. Cynical, but not trollworthy...

          •  I'm Universally Cynical (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            farleftcoast, Predictor

            I don't believe that ANY of our candidates will prosecute BushCo. I badly want them to, but lack the faith that even "my candidate" would take action.

            With that said, I can't let that affect my opinion of any particular candidate - it's a depressing wash...

          •  Utterly ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            farleftcoast, Predictor

            That two jackasses would troll rate my comment just because they don't agree with it.  I've been around this site for YEARS and I am NOT a troll.  

            Assholes.

        •  No chance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast

          It doesn't matter what Democrat is elected President. The major Bushies are free and clear once they are out of power. No one is going to prosecute (unless it is Iraq or Germany).

    •  he won't say so (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, PBnJ, betson08, farleftcoast, serrano, Matt Z

      and he likely won't. He's getting some votes because he doesn't trash Bush. But, he's clever, and congress gets to investigate, and I doubt he'll stop a prosecution, even if he could.  This is why we need to win congress, not just the white house, we need a big enough majority to move the investigations forward, and if he's our president we'll need to lean on him to support legislation that will hold the executive brach accountable to the people.  It wont' be over when the election is over. That said Edwards would, and Hillary would.  But whoever wins won't just get a four-year hall pass, been there, done that.  

      •  what has Edwards said about it? (4+ / 0-)

        Considering ONCE AGAIN that Bush can pardon everyone including himself unless Nancy lets hearing start.

        I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:53:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  has to be indicted first (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast

          can't pardon before indictment.  The charges have not yet been brought, and when they are, and if we take over congress they will be, for one thing neither your nor I would let up, and we're not alone, he'll be out of office, too late to pardon.  

          •  so BushCo will walk - thanks Nancy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            farleftcoast

            http://usgovinfo.about.com/...

            You can pardon for past, present and future.

            Should this presidential power be limited?
            At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates easily defeated proposals to make presidential pardons subject to the approval of the Senate, and to limit pardons to persons actually convicted of crimes.

            Proposals for constitutional amendments limiting the president's pardoning power have been offered in Congress.

            A 1993 resolution in the House suggested that, "The President shall only have the power to grant a reprieve or a pardon for an offense against the United States to an individual who has been convicted of such an offense." Basically, the same idea proposed in 1787, the resolution was never acted on by the House Judiciary Committee, where it slowly died.

            I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

              and I sure hope not. That would be something, if Bush pardons a bunch of people for past present and future crimes.  I think he would not get away with that, and I think Obama would, if that happened, take it back first thing and make a speech about justice being blind.  If he could do it without naming names, he would  

        •  Bush cannot pardon himself (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P

          Where are you getting this from? It is expressly forbidden for the president to pardon himself or any party to a crime the president committed.

          "How come I never land on a short, dull one?"

          by jhecht on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If Bush pardons everyone including himself (0+ / 0-)

      on his way out the door, for any and all crimes past, present and future the next President I don't think can do anything.

      Which brings us back to Nancy.

      I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pardons aren't a firewall. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        linnen, inHI

        The new president, be it Obama, Edwards or Clinton, will be seriously remiss in not encouraging the new Congress to launch more aggressive hearings into past wrong doing.

        Pardons will not absolve these clowns from the criminal offense of failing to respond to Congressional subpoenas issued in 2009.  Don't show up - go to jail.

        "...something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, [Ms. Pelosi]?"

        by WisePiper on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:02:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And incidentally, (0+ / 0-)

          Please explain to me how a pardon grants a free pass for future criminality.

          "...something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, [Ms. Pelosi]?"

          by WisePiper on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:11:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree on the firewall (0+ / 0-)

          Constitutional Authority for Presidential Pardons
          The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

          "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

          No standards, and only one limitation -- no pardons for the impeached.

          http://usgovinfo.about.com/...

          I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:28:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Show me where it says (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Simplify

            the President has the authority to pardon ANYONE's ass for a FUTURE crime?

            If the Congress launches an investigation in 2009, and a pardoned individual ignores the subpoena or perjures him/herself at the hearing, are you seriously suggesting that's not a criminal offense?

            That amendment to the Constitution must have slipped through when I wasn't paying attention.

            "...something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, [Ms. Pelosi]?"

            by WisePiper on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think preemptive pardons are not (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            linnen, buhdydharma, NonnyO

            legally supportable.  And yes, that means I think Ford's pardon of Nixon was nothing more than hot air.

            It's well past time we created some of our own reality.  Bush and Cheney can study it in prison.

            Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

            by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:20:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Drain the abscess; then healing can start. (6+ / 0-)

      It won't happen with Obama.  Edwards is my choice, and Hillary, say what you will, knows first hand the kind of knife fight our politics has become.  She's too much of an establishmentarian to really rock the boat, but she understands the nature of the political enemy.

      Sue me, but I just don't think Obama gets it.

      The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

      by magnetics on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good questions, all. But... (5+ / 0-)

      ...when (if) Bush departs the White House it'll make Giuliani's hasty retreat from Gracie Mansion look like Giuliani left it all.

      Everything in Washington will be wiped, shredded and disappeared.  Eight years of the People's history - gone.  And then all the scum in this administration will begin to write books.  For the next twenty or thirty years they'll be reconning reality.

      And some of the children of the youngest supporters of Obama will have children in their turn, who will rebel against their parents.  Some of them will read those books - and then go back through Thomas Hobbes, Ayn Rand, et alia.  And, deciding that literalism trumps beauty, they will take up the banner of Leviticus once again.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Oh well.  Only game in town...

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you.

      by Jaime Frontero on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:50:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  thank you, buhdy (9+ / 0-)

      this is one of my biggest worries with Obama.  Let's ask the tough questions.

      Honestly, I don't think he'll give a straight answer until after he's elected (if he gets that far)...

      Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

      by thereisnospoon on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where is Edwards on this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Luetta

        and what are his plans for justice if Bush pardons everyone?

        I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:53:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See my response above. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mattman, farleftcoast

          Hearings exploring Bushco criminality can and must take place in 2009.  A pardon may absolve one from crimes committed before 1/9/09, but subsequent perjury or failure to appear will be subject to prosecution.

          "...something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, [Ms. Pelosi]?"

          by WisePiper on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:17:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unless something is put into law soon - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            farleftcoast

            Bush can continue to do what he wants and get away with it.

            Should this presidential power be limited?
            At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates easily defeated proposals to make presidential pardons subject to the approval of the Senate, and to limit pardons to persons actually convicted of crimes.

            Proposals for constitutional amendments limiting the president's pardoning power have been offered in Congress.

            A 1993 resolution in the House suggested that, "The President shall only have the power to grant a reprieve or a pardon for an offense against the United States to an individual who has been convicted of such an offense." Basically, the same idea proposed in 1787, the resolution was never acted on by the House Judiciary Committee, where it slowly died.http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022501b.htm

            I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

            by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:32:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again, you're ignoring my point. (0+ / 0-)

              Bush DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to pardon anyone for a future crime.  Failure to respond to a Congressional subpoena in 2009 or perjuring oneself at a hearing in 2009, will be a PROSECUTABLE CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

              Are you being intentionally obtuse?

              "...something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, [Ms. Pelosi]?"

              by WisePiper on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                I disagree with you.  Where does it say anywhere that if Bush pardons say Cheney for crimes that Cheney then gets to be charged for the same crimes?

                I got tased in "The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7TM"

                by MadAsHellMaddie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:50:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK, I'll try again. (0+ / 0-)

                  Bush can pardon Cheney.

                  Cheney will not be subject to prosecution for any crimes committed prior to the date of the pardon.  We're agreed.

                  Now, the 111th Congress launches an investigation in 2009 exploring, for example, how the Presidential Records Act was violated during the Bush administration, with an eye toward reforming or clarifying the law.  Cheney is subpoened to testify on this matter.  Cheney refuses to comply, or Cheney responds to the subpoena and perjures himself.  THAT will be a prosecutable criminal act.

                  "...something is happening here, but you don't know what it is. Do you, [Ms. Pelosi]?"

                  by WisePiper on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:58:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  "Restore the Fourth Amendment..." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, buhdydharma, NonnyO

      If it could be restored, it can be taken away again just as simply.

      I prefer the phrasing "Uphold" and the only way that word can carry any meaning into the future is to prosecute and imprison those guilty of NOT "Upholding" the last 7 years.

      Only the readily available images of Bush, Cheney, et al. doing time will deter despotic hopefuls.

      If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

      by dj angst on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Standing O (7+ / 0-)

      Photobucket
      Photobucket

      -4.00 -5.44 "A man who chooses not to read, is just as ignorant as the man who cannot read." Mark Twain

      by TexDem on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Go get'em buhdy (9+ / 0-)

      let's get those f@#kers!!!!!
       
      Photobucket

      -4.00 -5.44 "A man who chooses not to read, is just as ignorant as the man who cannot read." Mark Twain

      by TexDem on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good question to ask. We already know (7+ / 0-)

      the answer with Hillary:  she will do jack squat just like Bill did nothing even though Iran/Contra and BCCI were scandals that, had they been more thoroughly investigated (all Bill had to do was "open the books" on that era and that would have broken the impasse we were at), could have taken down the Bush family for good.  Then we wouldn't have had W.

      Robert Parry has been on this beat for a long time.  Obama is indeed a big question mark which we need to scrutinize.  Not so with the Clintons:

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

      Hillary Clinton’s campaign is signaling that a second Clinton presidency will follow the look-to-the-future, don’t-worry-about-accountability approach toward Republican wrongdoing that marked Bill Clinton’s years in office.

      That was the significance of former President Clinton’s remarkable Dec. 17 comment that his wife’s first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America’s damaged image.

      "The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.

      What was perhaps most stunning about the remark was its assumption that Americans would be impressed that the country’s two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.

      The Bushes and the Clintons – who have held pieces of the nation’s executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush’s election as Vice President in 1980 – essentially would be keeping matters within the board rooms of the Washington Establishment.

      The only time I saw a real chance of taking down Bush crimes were if John Kerry had been elected.  After all, he's the one who actually blew open the original investigations in the first place.  Soon after Kerry's electoral "loss", Gary Webb committed suicide, so that gives you an idea of how much hope he had left for any vindication of his investigative work on CIA drugrunning, the Contras, and crack cocaine in south central LA (sins of Bush, the father).  

      Obama taking the nomination would increase our odds, but yeah -- how could he do the investigations without creating partisan havoc?  That will be the trick, of course, but justice does need to be served.  I don't care how he gets there, and if it's in a way that we haven't considered, but it needs to be done.

      •  John Kerry led Senate investigations (4+ / 0-)

        into Iran-Contra, and apparently was quite dogged about it.

        I understand he didn't get much legislation passed, but to me that's a good thing.  Hey Congress, stop making new laws (which either Bush/Cheney will ignore or which "legalize" past illegal activity) and start enforcing the ones on the books.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:23:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, buhdydharma, NonnyO

          We can have the Constitution or we can have Bush but, we can't have both.

          by Friend of the court on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:55:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, he has gotten a lot of legislation (0+ / 0-)

          passed; only, that in the final phase, his name wouldn't be on the bill (that is how the Senate works -- if you suspend your ego, you'll get things done quicker).  He co-wrote S-CHIP with Kennedy, wrote COPS, worked on Agent Orange, he's king on the environment (that was included on factcheck.org unlike all the other stuff), anti-terror financing provisions (written in '91, finally passed as an amendment to the Patriot Act in '01), and lots of veterans' care issues.  I know that I have only touched on the tip of the iceberg.  The problem was not his Senate record, but his campaign not highlighting it (or perhaps they were realistic that the press would scoff at him taking credit for WRITING BILLS that ultimately passed without his name on them).

    •  "whoever had won in the cornfields" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OLinda, buhdydharma

      Originally from Iowa, I resemble that remark buhdy!

    •  Buhdy, I want Bush and Cheney and all of them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnen, buhdydharma

      brought to justice.  I have been imagining Barack Obama as the face of our nation and the good he can do in working with the rest of the world...and that is important too.  Maybe then the world will bring us the justice we need.  It is important to insist on Bush's prosecution, you are right, now more than ever.  I've been able to put aside Obama's refusal to impeach in lieau of this feeling that I have that he can restore our place at the world table.  

    •  That is my biggest fear that regardless of who we (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, buhdydharma, NonnyO

      elect President, it will be the same old we can not live in the past and in the best interest of America we must move forward.

      Problem is that does not solve the problem and does not help prevent it happening again.

      The way to help prevent it happening again is to send all the bastards responsible straight to jail without a get out of jail free card.

      I would really like to know if there are any good men and women left in our governmental offices.

      by eaglecries on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:57:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey Buhdy? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma

      When I make my triumphant return to SF after six months of exile in Boston, are you gonna come out and pound a few shots of absinthe with me, or do you totally suck?

      Just when they think they've got the answer, I change the question. -Roddy Piper

      by McGirk on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  one minor question, bhud: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma

      will Bush be more likely to issue blanket pre-pardons if whoever gets the nomination makes this promise?  Or will he do it even if the Dems slink into office with their blinders untampered-with?

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

      by nailbender on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hope is a bitter pill (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, buhdydharma, MantisOahu

      ... when there is no reason to hope.  Hope cures nothing, heals nothing, and soothes no ruffled feathers, calms no anger.  It sounds pretty (and Obama is a good orator), but a year from now we will still be suffering from political PTSD after eight years of Georgie and Dickie and Capitulating Congress Critters and in no mood to do anything other than investigations and war crimes trials.  Whoever gets the office next will have a failed presidency because that person will be too busy with FUBAR Bu$hCo situations, trying to make them only SNAFU.  We won't be healed as a nation for decades to come.  If the next president can't divert everyone's attention to investigating the lies and crimes of Georgie and Dickie (and their evil minions), the whole nation will become enraged at the next resident of the oval office, no matter who it is.

      Thank you for this diary, buhdy.

      These questions need answering before we go to the polls in November.  Hillary's already indicated she's not going to do any investigating if she's elected.  That leaves Obama and Edwards with a big question mark over each of their heads.  (If neither one give a satisfactory answer, I'm writing in Dennis Kucinich's name; at least I could soothe my conscience that I voted for someone who did try to do something about Dickie, if not Georgie, since a couple of weeks ago he was contemplating adding impeachment of Georgie.)

      I'm in the mood for retribution and justice for those who should never have been tortured, for those who have so needlessly died in an illegal war for the sake of lies, oil, and greedy corporations.  I would rather see impeachment start by the end of this month, but I suspect I hope in vain for that.  The one thing that would unite this nation would be to see justice done in our names for a change, along with our rights restored.

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by NonnyO on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:28:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's our duty as patriotic progressives (0+ / 0-)

      to keep the pressure on these candidates to do the right thing.

  •  I bet if Edwards were in the lead (44+ / 0-)

    he would say so.

    The ONLY way to prevent another Bushco type presidency is to make the price of this one high to those that committed treason and other crimes.

    A thorough, HONEST investigation with adequate legal counsel for the defense is a must.

    "I'm not anti-_____________, I'm pro-Edwards."-me

    by sd4david on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:07:37 PM PST

  •  If the source of the stench is not uncovered (46+ / 0-)

    and removed the past will be our future. We need to look back no further than the '70s when the Nixonians were not rooted out. They made a comeback in the '80s and have completely ruined the '00s. That past has been our present. How much have any of y'all liked the last seven years?

    roman catholic by birth---- thoroughly confused by life

    by alasmoses on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM PST

  •  This needs to be highlighted and reiterated - (35+ / 0-)

    Unifying.....working with...reaching out to, Republican VOTERS is one thing...attempting to unify with the Republican politicians is another one completely. Half of Bush's base (Republican voters) have abandoned him, reaching out to these folks makes a certain amount of sense. Reaching out to Republican politicians who have still not abandoned Bush and expecting to pull back anything but a bloody stump is just plain naive.

     (emphasis mine)

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM PST

    •  How do we do that... (9+ / 0-)

      without giving up something...some things in return?

      And aren't we mad at the Congress for seeming to compromise away the kitchen sink?

      How do you deal with (unify with) people who don't want to?

      Undecided Democratic Voter...okay?

      by kredwyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't have children, so I don't know how to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kredwyn, NonnyO

        manage stubborn brats.

        My Karma just ran over your Dogma

        by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think my cat counts... (0+ / 0-)

          either.

          Classroom management might count. But my students generally aren't that unmanageable. Course their goals are all pretty similar when it comes to my class--pass.

          Undecided Democratic Voter...okay?

          by kredwyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  With the monopoly on power. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, Simplify

          Discipline is how parents deal with children who are badly misbehaving.

          Discussion is how parents deal with children who are mildly misbehaving.

          Support and Approval is how parents deal with children who are behaving.

          But all of this requires first and foremost a monopoly upon the power to do any of these.  Without that all threats of discipline are hollow, and will be ignored.

          IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

          by zephron on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:12:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  These are way beyond stubborn brats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MantisOahu

          They were born without a conscience.  The only way to deal with them is to convict them of their crimes.

          One does not ever "compromise" with a psychopath, nor "reach out" in any kind of "understanding" in hopes for some kind of cooperation.  It only makes them stronger, and they win.

          That's happened repeatedly over the last seven years.  Georgie throws a temper tantrum, and in the "spirit of bipartisanship" Congress Critters have "reached out" to "work with" Georgie and Dickie... and they have only one consistent record: giving in every time Georgie throws a temper tantrum.  It's only made him stronger, and he wins every time.  He's now a de facto dictator.

          We lose every time.

          (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

          by NonnyO on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:32:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Obama will not prosecute Bush (45+ / 0-)

    for anything - ever.

    http://www.usatoday.com/...

    Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

    He has already spoken out on this issue very clearly.  Another case of let us not rock the boat when it comes to the Bush administration

    Proud to be a Bleeding Heart Liberal

    by sara seattle on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM PST

  •  Maybe we could even figure out... (25+ / 0-)

    ...how to fund education like we used to, instead of having so much of it go into the pockets Bush family and cronies.

    Interesting concept.

    Robyn

  •  We can only hope that Obama prosecutes! (4+ / 0-)
  •  If not, how about a new trial for Leonard Peltier (10+ / 0-)

    Given that the Democratic Party "leadership"  recoils when charged with being "soft on crime,"   you would think they'd get tough on "high crimes and misdemeanors" that have bankrupted the treasury and killed hundreds of thousands.

    But if the next Democratic President refuses to pursue Bush and Cheney for their high crimes, they'd better give political prisoners like Leonard Peltier a new trial.  

    Otherwise, they're just flaming hypocrites.

    "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

    by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM PST

  •  I think Obama will be looking forward. n/t (6+ / 0-)
  •  Repugs (10+ / 0-)

    And for the repugs I would like to ask them if they will condone vote stealing, voter intimidation, voter negation and vote switching.

  •  This is SUCH an important question (26+ / 0-)

    and we have got to get some answers from all the candidates.
    Look what happened after watergate...same cast of villians trashing the country now, after all the 'healing' of sweeping the dirt under the rug.
    We need a 'cleansing' first, then real healing can actually occur !

     Let's work hard for this !

    My dear Congressman, Mike Michaud (  D-Maine) just amazed me by writing a letter urging Conyers to appoint a prosecutor and work toward impeaching Cheney !! I was so pleased to hear this , am sending emails and call of appreciation !

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it IF you can succeed." -Nancy Pelosi, 6/29/07.

    by Dvalkure on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM PST

  •  No, he won't (27+ / 0-)

    neither will any of the others.

    Once Bush/Cheney get past 1/20/09 it's all over and they... and their henchmen... get away with it all.

    The henchmen part really bothers me... cuz they'll be back... just like this crew was assembled out of the parts that came back from Nixon and Reagan.

    "Parlimentary inquiry Mr. Speaker... does whining come out of my time?"

    by Andrew C White on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:14:02 PM PST

  •  Good question. Where do Hope and Accountability (20+ / 0-)

    intersect?

    "Deforestation can never be stopped as long as trees are worth more dead than alive" - Mark Lynas

    by Bob Love on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM PST

  •  Strong questions, buhdy (18+ / 0-)

    and I'd like to hear some forthright answers from our candidates.

    But I doubt you'll hear any such thing before November.  Campaigning is not the time when bold and provocative statements are made, even if we think they're needed.

    We should keep asking the questions, but actions will speak louder than words.

  •  The past eight years (14+ / 0-)

    never happened.  It was all a terrible dream!  There's certainly a constituency for this view.  But it's unhealthy repressed memory.

    The crimes of the busheviks will come back to haunt us in ways we can't even imagine now.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Obama if he would just acknowledge that the past isn't merely the past.  It is prologue...

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:16:45 PM PST

    •  Which future president (7+ / 0-)

      will have the guts to declare the presidency of George W. Bush null and void?

      Never elected, evidence of treason, started an unjust war, committed war crimes, lied to the people more times than I could count...

      You want to unite Americans? Tell them G.W.B. is no longer protected by the Secret Service.

      He'll be hunted out of Crawford by a crowd with pitchforks and torches.

      Remember Romanian leader Ceausescu? In December, 1989, a popular uprising, joined by the army, led to the arrest and execution of him and his wife, Elena.

      I wouldn't mind participating.

      "To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee" Me to GWB c/o Herman Melville

      by Patriot4peace on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only protected for ten years (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, mattman, Karma for All

        Bush is the first president not to have lifetime Secret Service protection. It ends ten years after he leaves office, but I'm wondering if he still gets the SS detail while he's in prison waiting for his trial at The Hague?

        Chaos. It's not just a theory.

        by PBnJ on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:00:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  counterproductive (0+ / 0-)

        Really, it's not worth posting that on an open forum.

        Also, I'm against the death penalty, in all cases.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:37:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why the entire Democratic field (25+ / 0-)

    hasn't framed the prosecution of Bushco crimes and injustices as an issue that rises to the level of a spiritual imperative is beyond me...

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." Hillary Rodham Clinton 12/19/07

    by mudslide on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:18:52 PM PST

  •  No. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, buhdydharma, Good Hope Road

    This is not a fair, or smart, question to ask ANY of our candidates.

    We still have to run a general election campaign.  I don't want to lose any I or cross-over R votes because of this.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

    Answering this question is a lose-lose and it shouldn't be asked, especially by our side.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 3900+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

    by Miss Blue on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM PST

  •  Thanks Buh (12+ / 0-)

    Do not hold your breath. I am an old broad and am fast losing hope in the restoration of our country. We live in an era of celebrity news, celebrity people and celebrity riches. I am terrified of the specter of a cultish adoration which I fear will propel BHO to the nomination and the presidency.

    If that happens I hope somewhere he can dig down deep and find the grit to stand up for what's right, what's good and what we need. Universal health care, clean air, clean food, cheap medications, jobs, education, etc.

    I wish him well if he wins (he's not my #1 choice) and wish to remind him of the great rudyard kipling saying which hangs over center court @ wimbledon

    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;

    Here's the whole poem

    [IF]
    If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
    But make allowance for their doubting too,
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
    And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
    If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
    If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
    If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

    If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breath a word about your loss;
    If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
    And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

    If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
    If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
    If all men count with you, but none too much,
    If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
    Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
    And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

    --Rudyard Kipling

  •  Tough questions indeed (6+ / 0-)

    It seems to me Obama has been treated with the political equivalent of kid gloves this election cycle. That combined with only 2 years Senate experience, 1 of which he's spent campaigning, has netted him alot of milage based on the hope & a prayer he's asking for. If elected, my hope comes to an end Jan. 20, and concrete, competent delivery on promises will be expected, no excuses.

  •  Hopefully Obama concentrates on moving forward (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi

    and doesn't dwell in the doldrums of the past. Some fanatics make my head spin.

  •  Iraq: (10+ / 0-)

    It is also the historical legacy of every single public figure and presidential candidate who fails to stand up -- right now, today, and every single day-- and demand that this abomination come to an immediate end, and that its perpetrators face the full measure of justice for what they have done. Who gives a damn about Obama's "elevating rhetoric" or Hillary's "tough fight-back" in New Hampshire -- or any of the other soul-rotting bullshit of the presidential campaign -- when this innocent blood drenches us all, day after day after day? Moral insanity has gripped this nation -- and we are all of us, every single one, tainted and corrupted by it...and are passing it on to our children.  Who will break this chain of madness? And where will we find mercy for these crimes?

    from Chris Floyd

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/...

    We don't have time for short-term thinking.

    by Compound F on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM PST

  •  I can see it now (12+ / 0-)

    the Future Democratic President referring to Bush as a "statesman." I get sick just thinking about it.

    •  While he would do a great job there (0+ / 0-)

      I would like to see Patrick Fitzgerald in the AG position.  He would return a professionalism there.  

      Edwards I would like to see in charge of the economy.  Secretary of Labor would be good.  

      Then for the environment lets get Al Gore.  So many good people to fill these positions and replace the idealogical hacks GWB appointed.  

      ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

      by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would hope that Obama (4+ / 0-)

    will prosecute.  I'd like to see those guys hung from a tree.  

    But, I don't think that's Obama's way.  I am a big supporter of his, but this is one area that I don't have a good feeling about.  

    A great many of us would feel better if they were tried.  However, how many of us would get really alienated by that?

    Hmmmmmm.  Come to think about it, probably not many - no matter what party you belonged to.

    I got tased in *The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7*

    by nolalily on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:31:34 PM PST

    •  None of the candidates are going to prosecute (4+ / 0-)

      anyone from the last administration.  It's not going to happen under Hillary,Edwards, Obama or anyone else.

    •  I don't think any of the candidates... (0+ / 0-)

      ... would prosecute. Partly because the list of what needs changing is so very damn long (and then there is Iraq) that there would not be time enough in four years to do it. Just my IMVHO.

      But yes, look at the scum from the Nixon/Reagan years that have returned... arrrrgggghhhhh.

      [hair-tearing sounds]

      •  Kucinich would prosecute (0+ / 0-)

        But Lamestream Media and most of the blogosphere doesn't take him seriously; he barely gets a mention and he was denied admittance to tonight's ABC "debate.".  He already presented the impeachment resolution against Cheney and that's sitting gathering dust in the House Judiciary Committee.

        Kucinich also has a not-for-profit health care plan where all the others don't.

        Something tells me when people figure out there was only really one candidate who was willing to abide by his oath of office and he was jeered as "unelectable" that we are gonna regret it a year from now when we find out no one's gonna even investigate Dickie or Georgie for their lies and war crimes, let alone pursue prosecutions for same - assuming they leave office willingly and don't create a false ter'rist incident, declare martial law, cancel elections, and go from the de-facto dictators they are now to official dictators....

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

        by NonnyO on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:31:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  will obama get me a pony? (6+ / 0-)

    I WANT TO KNOW NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

    All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

    by SeanF on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM PST

    •  Probly a unicorn! n/t (4+ / 0-)

      www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

      by chuckvw on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No ponies for people who (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, PBnJ, buhdydharma, phoenixdreamz

      write in all caps, Sean. tsk tsk tsssssk

      You can have capitalism without all the selfishness. --MontanaMaven
      "I choose to be inspired." -- JRE

      by Leslie H on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry (5+ / 0-)

        i was channeling the diarist.

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL (6+ / 0-)

          I hope you didn't hurt yerself!

          •  i guess i'm giving into all the excitement... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buhdydharma

            prosecuting bushco is the antithesis of obama's message  right now, so I hardly think you are gonna hear about that. Correcting the wrongs of bushco seems quite on the table though, and I totally accept your point that without that, healing is meaningless.

            It's gonna be a leap of faith, though, with Obama. But then again, it'd be a leap of faith with anyone. I heard someone on tv or somewhere say, "Once we have Obama as the face of the nation, America will be changed forever." So I think I'm almost ready to leap.

            All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

            by SeanF on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is one of the reasons why (6+ / 0-)

              prosecuting bushco is the antithesis of obama's message

              I don't like his message.  

              ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

              by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:52:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yah (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NonnyO

                fair enough. if i'm reading him right, his message is to America, not bushco. The message to america is, hey come on, we really are all in this together. Stop thinking about this as a zero sum game, who wins, who loses, lets decide together what we want to do. The things I'm gonna describe are really what you want to do, and you know it!

                So basically he's creating a nonpartisan bubble where progressive things suddenly make sense.

                And that by no means precludes prosecuting bushco. But that's a different conversation altogether.

                All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

                by SeanF on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nonpartisan? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rob Mac K, farleftcoast, Simplify

                  There is no way in hell you can create a nonpartisan bubble in this atmosphere.  You can stand up and hold to your principles and the countries principles but you can't just wave a wand and stop the attacks the Republicans are making against us and the constitution.  It's just such unrealistic thinking that scares me.  

                  It doesn't matter who his message is too.  It's an unrealistic message that is going to run straight into the maelstrom of Republican hate the moment Obama is determined to be the nominee of our party.  Just as Clinton was, just as Gore was, just as Kerry was Obama will find that there is no room for nonpartisan in this current atmosphere.

                  ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                  by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  He already stated his position: (0+ / 0-)

                  http://www.usatoday.com/...
                  Updated 187d ago  [187 days before 6 Jan '08]

                  Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

                  Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

                  "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

                  "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

                  (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

                  by NonnyO on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:35:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  When I lay awake at night (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SeanF, badger, PBnJ, farleftcoast, buhdydharma

    It's not concerns about my health insurance, what with my preexisting, chronic condition, nor the fact that the Arctic ice may idsappear in a few years that keeps me awake at night. I wonder whether the the next President will devote enough of the federal government's resources, use enough of his political capital and command the media's attention with the crucial task of prosecuting the former Administration. That's the crucial question for me. Shit, I don't want to know what you'll do to make the country better, protect people's jobs, save the world. I want to know if you're going to prosecute those filthy bastards. That's it in a nutshell for me. Not.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM PST

    •  Hmm. (7+ / 0-)

      When I lay awake at night, crimes against our form of government are what keeps me awake.   We can solve the energy crisis, healthcare, maybe even global warming, but only if we have a government and a political framework that functions.  Right now it does not.  I'm sorry, but defending the Constitution and the rule of law has to come first in order to solve any of this. Otherwise more lies will go unacknowledged and more crimes will go unpunished, all of which will prevent us from solving the problems you're talking about.

      When (if?) Bush steps down next January, almost all of the toxic machinery that has brought us torture, the FISA crimes, and the Iraq war will still be there to greet Senator Obama, Clinton, or Edwards.  
      If lies and crimes don't have consequences, then we'll just get more of the same, and a lot of it.  And it will be impossible to fix any of the critical problems that we need to.  I'm afraid that if a good portion of the next 4 years isn't devoted to Democrats doing some ass-kicking, then "negotiation" will mean the same capitulation to criminals that it does now.

      •  An important point (5+ / 0-)

        Nixon >> Reagan >> Bush  each administration gets progressively worse.  What will the next Republican administration become if we don't set some boundaries on their behavior?  Bill Clinton's administration had to spend too much time cleaning up after Reagan while fighting an on-going battle against the Repubs who were trying to stymie him.  Our next president is going to be spending most of their term just beginning the clean up of this disasterous group while being assaulted by the venomous Repubs again.  

        What will the next Repub administration bring us if we don't stop this cycle?  How can we stop the cycle if we don't acknowledge it and deal with it?

        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

        by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:59:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't even buy the premise (0+ / 0-)

          What did Reagan do that compared to the illegal, secret bombing of Cambodia? That's not even touching on the clear crimes of the Watergate "Plumbers" crew. Iran-Contra? Well, that was a constitutional question as to whether Congress could restrict the WH ability to fund contra activities. They tried to do it, and the Reagan crew went outside the law to find a way to funnel money there. You're really talking about a power and policy struggle between Congress, but hardly anything like the level of base criminality that Nixon employed.

          Bush has gone too far, in many ways. Lots of disrespect for various legal regimes. Not just politics or policy/power struggles. I don't see a trend here, though. They thought the stakes were incredibly high, and could justify anything. That is appalling. Hopefully, that won't happen again, but I don't think that prosecutions will have much impact. That's like saying we should have death penalty for suicide bombers. Is that really a deterrent? If another regime thinks it's already a life and death matter for the country, they're not going to be deterred by possible prosecutions later.

          And, as I've said, I think we have much larger priorities. If we're going to sepnd political capital, it shouldn't be on prosecutions that will be seen as political.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You apparently haven't read up on Reagan (6+ / 0-)

            and his administration if you can say that.  

            If another regime thinks it's already a life and death matter for the country, they're not going to be deterred by possible prosecutions later.

            One of the points that you missed is that this administration and Reagan's before it were staffed by the people who were given a walk in the Nixon administration.  Investigating and criminally prosecuting the people who committed these crimes will remove them from the ability to hold these offices.  By allowing them to slide into retirement and be portrayed as respected members of our political establishment we will have them showing up on talk shows and legitimizing their illegalities.  When another Republican administration happens and it will they will be the first people to be chosen for important, critical government positions.  

            There are many life and death issues that we have to deal with.  This is one of the more important ones.  Unfortunately, I think your type of thinking will prevail and we will have another round and a worse round of Republican assaults on our country.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:35:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

              Almost anyone who served in the Nixon Administration is so damn old that there is no chance of them ever being asked to serve in another Administration. So, that analysis doesn't quite hold up.

              Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

              by FischFry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sigh (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                farleftcoast, NonnyO

                Rumsfeld director of the office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon.
                Later named ambassador to NATO.

                Cheney Rumsfeld's personal asst and later asst director of the Cost of Living Council.

                Paul Wolfowitz worked at the Arms Control and Disarmament agency.

                Colin Powell fellowship at the White House and then Frank Carlucci's asst in the Office of Management and Budget.

                PBS

                First google result.  Try looking things up for yourself and learn something.

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:54:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

                  I said they're almost all too old to get posts in another Republican Administration -- This whole discussion presume a Democrat (obama) wins this year. So, it's at least 4 years until the next GOP President.

                  I repeat: they're almost all too old to get posts in another Republican Administration. Not to mention the fact that everyone of those individual is basically personae non grata for every Republican candidate. You didn't mention Rove, who was head of College Republicans, and worked on the campaign (ever see the clip of Dan Rather interviewing the little monster?). None of these guys will ever have a job in another White House, with the possible exception of Powell, but he's pretty unlikely, too. No Republican wants to be seen in public with any of these clowns. And most of them would be deemed too old for public service in 4-8 years, anyway -- which was my point. Sigh.

                  Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                  by FischFry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:51:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So I guess they don't have people who worked for (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Luetta

                    them either just like they worked for people in the Nixon administration.  Scooter Libby was loyal enough to Cheney to risk jail time for him.  How many people are this generations Rumsfeld and Cheney and as you pointed out Rove?  Because we are going to let them get away with their criminal behavior we won't know until they turn up in the next Republican administration.  Then we will find out in detail how well they learned the lessons from the Bush administration.  

                    ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                    by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:52:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I know these are sexy (0+ / 0-)

        They're sexy, especially when you get to say they're crimes involved, but illegal interrogation techniques used against a few people, and the data-mining/monitoring communications -- these pale before the problems of 40 million uninsured, and so many millions more that really can't afford their health care, the 37 million in poverty, the global warming that threatens countless species and many, many millions of people. If we focus on the stuff you want, instead of the stuff I want, future generations are going to ask what the fuck we were thinking, and what the fuck we were doing with precious time and resources.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Prerequisite to progress (5+ / 0-)

          Here's why it's so important to bring the lies to light (from Glenn Greenwald):

          it would be hard for anyone to compete with this most revealing fact from USA Today in September, 2003 -- six months after the invasion of Iraq:

             Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

             Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

          That happened because of statements like this, from Condoleezza Rice in September, 2002:

             No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. . . . But, yes, there clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented. There clearly is testimony that some of these contacts have been important contacts and there's a relationship here.

          Lies matter.  Unchallenged lies make our democracy cease to function.  We could easily pay for universal, single-payer healthcare for years with the money that we're pouring into Iraq.  When conservatives brazenly lie and know they can get away with it, there can be no progress.

        •  means to a common end (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, rsr, FischFry

          Clearly we want the same things, and I'm completely sympathetic to the criticality of progress on global warming, on healthcare.  But our political institutions have become so damaged by Republican lies that I really believe we have to address that part head on if we want to make any progress.  Maybe prosecutions aren't the answer, but we need something to hold all of the worst of what the Republicans have done to the light of day so that Americans can say, wow, we really have been taken for a ride, and wow, it really was one-sided, and wow, our traditional media really did fall flat on its ass.  I believe that discrediting the lies and the liars is critical for getting a fair hearing on how our country needs to move forward.

          •  Here's the most original idea you will ever read (0+ / 0-)

            I think I may diary this. I don't think prosecutions are the answer, but I do think that lies and breaches of law should be brought to light.

            There are two models for this: The antagonism of a an adversarial, prosecutorial, criminal process -- which will probably lead to the political equivalent of a civil war, and cause the GOP to bring gridlock in response.

            The alternative model is the innovation that South Africa brought us with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The GOP would not almost as upset with wide-ranging hearings as they would with prosecutions.

            However, I think there is a way that the GOP might even be induced to actually call for Congressional or independent investigations and hearings.

            (Here is the part wherein I make the most original proposal anyone has ever made. Ready?):

            The next (Democratic) President should, in the first weeks of his term, issue a pardon for the President, the Vice-President and any staffers, intelligence agents, etc., that might have committed infractions of law in the exercise of their commissions -- that is, in doing the work of the people.

            The GOP wil freak out, screaming it's blatantly political -- that there are no crimes that need pardons...and they will demand some forum in which to seek the truth and vindication for the Republican Administration.

            That way, there is no partisan death-match. There is only a process by which the primacy of law and the Constitution can be restored, through a full public airing of the deeds and/or misdeeds of the Bush Administration. That way, we get to have our cake and eat it, too -- no?

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:19:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Right, and to argue that we can let (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        farleftcoast, power model

        Constitutional principles of liberty and the rule of law slide, for "getting things done" on specific issues, is to by default argue for a benevolent dictatorship.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:05:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Given his knowledge of constitutional law (8+ / 0-)

    I would certainly hope he would restore the checks and balances in our system of government, roll back every executive order that increases the power of the executive branch, and restore the rule of law.  None of the crap instituted by Bush are valuable or necessary for good governance, so there is absolutely no justification for the preservation of the steps taken toward autocracy.  

    I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. - John F. Kennedy

    by DWG on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:32:27 PM PST

  •  I would like to see all those questions asked (7+ / 0-)

    tonight--to every candidate.

    You're not lost until you stop and ask for directions....

    by Azdak on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:32:42 PM PST

  •  Just Get Obama's Promise to NOT Interfere (6+ / 0-)

    with any investigations, for any reason, unity or otherwise, with any pardons.

    There is a real chance that members of the current admin will be charged with war crimes, and as I noted in a prior comment, I frankly don't know why questions aren't being asked the candidates concerning that.

  •  I don't know about prosecuting after s/he takes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, buhdydharma, Mad Kossack

    office - the new pres is going to have a pile of messes to deal with immediately upon taking office.

    BUT, I am looking forward to dems and Bush malcontents having a true opposition leader to rally behind. I think the anti-Bush message has been muted so far because of an unwillingness to coalesce around one voice when so many were vying for the nod.

    In a matter of weeks we will most likely know who will represent the dems in the next election and that person MUST assume the role of opposition leader. There is still time before the end of the Bush admin to see some justice done. I for one will expect Obama or Clinton - whichever it is - to stand up and be that leader from their senate positions.

  •  Oh - wanted to add that I love the idea of JE (8+ / 0-)

    as AG (assuming he is not the nominee). His background of fighting for social justice would be timely and absolutely essential.

  •  Sadly, I doubt it. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, boofdah, buhdydharma, NonnyO

    But I don't think it has anything to do with Obama's "niceguyness" ... I don't think any of them will do it. No one has shown the slightest inclination to hold BushCo to account for their crimes. It's shameful.

    "Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -- Gandhi

    by akasha on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM PST

  •  This is a profound point (3+ / 0-)

    "Republican VOTERS is one thing...attempting to unify with the Republican politicians is another one completely."  

    Let's see if we can get Obama to discuss.

    •  Listen to the IA Victory Speech. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma

      I share your concern and have criticized him hard for the idea of partnering with epochal criminals.

      But he's making sounds about fighting, about recognizing obstacles, and other indications that suggest not the degree of rolling over we fear.

      The other side of the coin is that what's wrong is being driven by societal forces that aren't going to allow great social change quickly no matter who's in office.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can answer that question: (6+ / 0-)

    Hell no, he won't.

    Here's my question:  Given the utter awfulness of the GOP field, if Obama was running as a Republican, would he be winning?  In other words, is Obama the best Republican in the field?

    I think so.  And that scares the crap out of me.  I think Obama has absolutely nothing invested in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.  If he gets elected, expect him to stick it to people like us early and often.

    •  Ouch. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rob Mac K, farleftcoast, greenearth

      That's a painful thought experiment.

      Obama really does seem to have a movement going, but it does not include most traditional Dem interest blocs. He's the beneficiary of a type of direct democracy... and as a Californian, whose state ballot measure system has both entirely crippled the legislative process, and been corrupted by hidden interests who game the system, I can swear that this is a risky prospect.

    •  I've been wondering (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rob Mac K, farleftcoast

      And this is an honest question to which I hope someone will provide some affirmative answers:

      Has Obama staked out any positions that are to the left of more than 50% of the population?  Or is the best that we can hope for that he will ride the political pendulum on its inevitable swing toward the left, rather than doing anything to push it?

      •  As both he and Hillary have shown (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rob Mac K, farleftcoast

        when the pendulum swings they will quietly say they are for it.  They will however do nothing to move the pendulum to the left and will many times stand with those who are trying to push it the other way.  See Hillary and her refusal to apologise for her war vote and her bringing an anti-union CEO into her campaign or Obama and the McClurkin affair.  

        What we will get from both of them are competent managers.  I don't look to them for change or leadership as they have shown by their actions they are capable of neither.  I look for them to stop the hemorrhaging the Republicans have done to our government and our country.  We are going to have to provide the leadership for change in our country.  This next administration in my opinion will be only a stop gap administration that will give us the opportunity to build a progressive movement that will force our political leaders to get to the head of our parade.  

        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

        by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Staked out positions?" (0+ / 0-)

        Why don't you look at his record and liberal rating instead of worrying if he's making the right noises?

        •  I read Audacity of Hope already (0+ / 0-)

          so the column you pointed me to didn't really add any new information.   And the 95% liberal voting record didn't actually answer my question.  The public is so far to the left of what our policies and debate are right now, that someone could have a 95% liberal voting record just by taking Joe Median's opinion on everything.  The Republicans argue for unpopular policy almost continuously.

          It's a high standard, I know, but I'd like to our candidate to make the case for policies that are beyond what the public already supports, so that the Overton Window gets moved during the campaign.

  •  If you want to see anything like this happen (4+ / 0-)

    send Steve Cohen's reelection campaign some spare change.  He's facing a primary challenge from a carpetbagger brought in by the Ford machine. It's Harold Ford's former campaign manager, actually.  

    He was one of the first to cosponsor Kuchinich's impeachment bill.  He's been kicking ass and taking names on the Judiuary committie and needs to stay there.

    Here's a Q&A he did on FDL about a year ago:

    http://firedoglake.com/...

    Here is his Act Blue page with less than $5000 raised to date.

    http://www.actblue.com/...

  •  and if the supreme court says no (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, boofdah, zephron

    pack the court

    •  Wouldn't that be "angry"? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, sherlyle

      I mean no great Dem president would ever do that, right?  It's just not looking forward.

      Oh, wait, FDR?  A fighter?  No, really?!?

      IMPEACH=Rock+Hard Place! Let every Rethug either publicly support the least popular president in 30 years, or admit their president is a traitor.

      by zephron on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:29:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We'll be lucky if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      we can get a moderate on the Supreme Court.  More likely we'll get an only conservative Democrat on the Supreme Court who will help with the further destruction of the Unions and building up of corporate power.  

      After all we won't be able to get those 60 votes required for anything Democratic these days.  Hushhh don't call it a filibuster that's so divisive.  

      ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

      by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:58:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's an alternative (4+ / 0-)

    The nominee doesn't have to prosecute because it's not their job.

    If the f@cking Congress would get its crap in a basket and let Wexler, Kucinich, et al do what's right and what's moral and what's ethical then we shouldn't ever have to comtemplate asking the nominees this question -- but because Nancy and Harry have made deals to cover their asses, this is why we're here.

    Hillary could actually do a damn fine job as a long-term senator along the lines of Kennedy or Byrd. She could be very powerful, respected, and influential shaping things from the senate floor (this suggestion is neither an endorsement nor an anti-endorsement because I am undecided).

    Umm.... yeah. That's my rant for the afternoon  =O)

    Chaos. It's not just a theory.

    by PBnJ on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM PST

    •  It may not be the nominee's job (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, Simplify, NonnyO

      it certainly is the Presidents.  The justice department is responsible for criminal behavior of this sort isn't it?  We can't allow it to be only when Democrats behave that way that the justice department goes to work.

      However.....

      If the f@cking Congress would get its crap in a basket and let Wexler, Kucinich, et al do what's right and what's moral and what's ethical then we shouldn't ever have to comtemplate asking the nominees this question -- but because Nancy and Harry have made deals to cover their asses, this is why we're here.

      you are definitely right about this.  

      ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

      by Rebecca on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:06:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, Our System Doesn't Do That (6+ / 0-)

    It can change course to some extent, but it can't appropriately punish crimes at this level on this scale.

    As for the Unitary,

    I don't see that a President can roll back Presidential precedent by simply declining to follow them. It requires other branches taking them back. Either Court decisions which the Bush Court isn't going to make for the next quarter century, or law enforcement which never happens, or else amendments, which is a slim possibility.

    And a hope candidate is not going to run on punishment regardless of what he does once in office.

    We saw what happened when Dean promised NBC he'd break up big media companies, and you can read every day about the media blackout on corporate-skeptic John Edwards.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM PST

  •  No, he won't. (0+ / 0-)

    He won't even answer the question.  Why?  Because Bush will never be impeached, and no one can pass that litmus test for the Kucinich wing of the party (a very short wing, btw, which he doesn't need to win).   [Rhetorical question alert]

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM PST

  •  If he wants to unite the country (5+ / 0-)

    then prosecution is the last thing he will do.  It would virtually ensure that the opposition would work twice as hard as they usually do to undermine anything he might want to accomplish.

    If he told you he was going to prosecute George Bush, it would almost immediately sabotage his entire campaign and make him unelectable.  War Crimes hyperbole may be popular on this website, but outside it is largely considered to be fringe lunatic.

    •  Reality Is Lunacy in America (8+ / 0-)

      Has been for half a century.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:45:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's a lot more than war crimes! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PBnJ, farleftcoast, NonnyO

      PLENTY of simple graft.
      Let's not forget the Siegelman case.
      The Justice Department is very corrupted right now. will Obama fix it?

    •  Then usher the outside (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, power model, fhcec

      Out of the Matrix. I understand and have a hard time refuting your point in a political context, but the mere idea that mass murder could be equated with hyperbole should give us some idea of how deep the rabbit hole has become. If people are outraged now, what would happen if they had consistent access to the truth?

    •  I'm certainly in support (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      of putting the balance back between security and privacy, for sure. I'm definitely against prosecution and the like. I just really think we all need to settle down.

    •  actually (7+ / 0-)

      Americans who were prosecutors at Nuremberg think Bush has committed war crimes or that at the very least a good case requiring a trial can be made. Law professors around the world have weighed in with similar opinions, including the International Commission of Jurists. Over 300 law professors from over 80 law schools in the USA have also expressed similar opinions. And Tony Bliar was warned the war was illegal.

      It's hyperbolic to speak of trials only in the sense that we are a rogue state with absolutely no self-awareness and zero citizen awareness about international law and international principles of human rights.

      •  I dont doubt it. (0+ / 0-)

        Law is a very grey area.  Im willing to bet 300 law professors could make a case that international law was broken for a majority of leaders around the world.

        •  actually (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, NonnyO

          in this case the law is pretty clear. "Pre-emptive war" is in fact a war crime. All of the surviving American prosecutors at Nuremberg will attest to this.

          Your answer is one of those vague things people throw out at people hoping they'll be a "centrist" who sees everything as "fair and balanced" (two sides to everything, both equal, which is complete bullshit in this case)

          The unworkability of international law is foremost the result of the world's only superpower flagrantly ignoring the law, going it alone. This is in stark contrast to Justice Jackson's assertion at Nuremberg that "if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

          In fact that is precisely what we have done. That's why "they" hate "us". Ron Paul had it right, of all people. He's the most revolutionary candidate in this race (he's a radical "market" fundamentalist, but he's right on about our role in the world and the long tradition of our ignoring the law)

    •  "the opposition would work twice as hard" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rob Mac K, farleftcoast, NonnyO

      I don't believe that for a minute.

      Bill Clinton tried to accommodate the conservatives, to the point of letting Iran-Contra slide in 1993, and they staged an impeachment coup anyway.

      When you argue against fighting conservatives so that they won't fight us, it's by default preemptive surrender.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've always said. (6+ / 0-)

    ...that prosecuting Bushco isn't really important. But revealing every single illegal and unethical thing they've done is what's truly important.

    Completely tear down his "legacy". Let the nation and the world see just how impossibly EVIL they are and that they were well on their way to creating a fascist state.

    The damage to their legacy and the right-wing neocons/theocons in general would be monumental and future generations will know to never go down that path again. It will be very similar to how Germany is now. They're extremely sensitive of anything resembling a return to the bad ol' days of Nazi Germany. Extreme comparison? I don't think so.

    Get over the bitterness and urge to "get them back" for all they've done. I'm not saying forgive them, but I am saying to not waste time and resources prosecuting them for anything but the very worst of crimes (for instance, if it's proven that 'W' approved torture).

    Expose. Disgrace. Render Inert.

  •  I was just posting... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, buhdydharma

    similar thoughts on my reservations against Hillary Clinton when I saw this diary. I sensed she would give bushesco a big pass. I know Edwards won't, don't know much about Obama. When I diaried about this some days ago I was attacked I guess by Hillary supporters, but it looks like I'm not the only one that has been thinking about this.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    May the Schwartz be with you! http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

    by FLS on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:47:26 PM PST

  •  At least a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (7+ / 0-)

    All prosecutions all the time may be counterproductive. My gut wants it bad. My brain says there will be a lot of big issues that should take precedence (health care, energy, global warming, fiscal responsibility ... etc.)

    However, a serious governmental commission to document and 'de-politicize' the civil service is a must.

    -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

    by grapes on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 02:47:38 PM PST

  •  Obama actually has stated (4+ / 0-)

    that he'd seek to repeal any and all laws that encroach upon civil liberties that Bush enacted. Before I picked anyone to support, that was my primary interest (in any of the candidates). Up until recently, the only one saying it was Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I'm glad Obama joined in too (and I think Edwards too?).

  •  why would 1 pour sugar in their own machine? (3+ / 0-)
  •  S-1959 is a test Barack Obama must pass... (7+ / 0-)

    The introduction of S-1959 (and HR-1955), a broadly written thought crime bill, is part of the shift that we are seeing to fascism.

    Do you want to see your ability to disagree with the George W. Bush administration taken away?

    http://www.betterbadnews.com/...

    The bill, (S-1959) misleadingly called the Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization act of 2007 is a thought crime bill. The bill was passed in the house under a curious suspension of the rules usually reserved for non controversial issues like the naming of a post office.

    A Senate Vote is imminent. Obama sits on the Senate committee responsible for moving it forward or sending it back to nazi Germany. As of December 27, 2007, Obama says he hasn’t yet decided how he will vote.

    Time to take a stand.

  •  The pardon thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925

    How specific does Bush have to be?  If he needs to  issue an individual proclamation for each pardon he wants to grant he must surely have already started, or else he'll never finish by January.  Maybe just write "I pardon all dese guys for everything" on a copy of the executive branch phone book?  Then set up an underground railroad to Paraguay for anyone that was missed.

  •  If we never want to see another criminal like GWB (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dazy, DrKate, PBnJ, farleftcoast, Flippant, NonnyO

    ...in the White House, it HAS to be done. People must be made to see that what has been done IN OUR NAME by this administration runs totally contrary to our constitution and our entire form of government, and that anyone who tries to do this again will be run out of town on a rail -- at the very least.

  •  We HANGED Germans (7+ / 0-)

    for the stuff Bush is doing.

    The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter. -- Benjamin Ferencz, a Nuremberg Prosecutor

    Aggressive war - by the Nuremberg principles, that's what Bush is doing. Germans were hanged for that. Torture - Germans were hanged for that.

    Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

    (a) Crimes against peace.

    (b) War Crimes:
    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    ... if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.
    -- Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg

    Of course, there is this:

    Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

    By the above, a lot of Congresscritters and private contractors and military leaders would have to be tried as well. So we will have a future where Nuremberg never happened. With 100% certainty that is true. We are now a rogue state.

    ... if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.
    -- Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg

  •  Excellent Thank You! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrKate, boofdah, NonnyO

    Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the advocates of truth and justice... Robert Ingersol

    by BMarshall on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM PST

  •  Senator Obama reached while in conference with... (4+ / 0-)

    his Goldman Sachs backers and 'mentor' Senator Joe Lieberman replied:

    Bwaaaaaaahhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaaaaaa....Indict....Bwaaaahhaa....not now Mr. 'Netroots' or whatever your calling yourselves this week. We're busy dividing the spoils pie. Indict...snort...chuckle...

    Good question though.

    Very good question indeed.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:06:48 PM PST

  •  Yea - I was just thinking about this today (5+ / 0-)

    With all the love fest about Hope and Change - I only want one position addressed.

    ONE Question for Mr. Obama in his area of expertise: "Constitutional Scholar"

    Mr. Obama, do you think that the President, George W Bush and the Vice President, Richard Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the people and constitution of these United States of America?

    Should impeachment hearings begin?

    "America Rising" - John Edwards we are with you.

    by totallynext on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM PST

  •  he won't answer these questions. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob Mac K, CanisMaximus, boofdah, NonnyO, VClib

    or indeed, any other particular questions.

    i don't know whether that's because he thinks we won't like the answers, or because he thinks too many "independents" won't like the answers, or because he fears what the RWNM will do with his answers, or because he doesn't have any sensible answers, or what.

    this is what irritates me the most about Obama: i have no real idea what he intends to do as president, so i have no real idea whether i should be pleased with his progress or not.

    as a kucinich support, i only realized that i was leaning edwards when i was watching the numbers come in from iowa. though even there, i think i was rooting for as close to a tie as possible, even for hillary. i think what i want most is for this decision process to last long enough to simply break all the rules of expectation that the blatherati are throwing at us.

    I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

    by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:10:17 PM PST

  •  This is really the big one... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, totallynext

    And i'm expecting an answer, not just from Obama but from all the candidates. (Well, i think i know the Republican position...)

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:11:35 PM PST

  •  Of course Obama won't prosecute past crimes... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PBnJ, farleftcoast, boofdah, VClib

    It's time to move on.  Alas.

    Put America first, oil second. No, put oil last.

    by djohnutk on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:16:34 PM PST

  •  There you are! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buhdydharma

    Good questions, kossack! Are answers free Senator Obama?

    The separation of art and science is impossible. Wendell Berry

    by emmasnacker on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM PST

  •  Reverse Bush Policies: YES! YES! YES! (0+ / 0-)

    Clean House?   Yes!  Yes!  Yes!

    Prosecute everybody in sight?  Maybe.  I need to think about this one.  I want to see justice, but I don't want to waste time on revenge.  To the extent that reversing those horrible policies and cleaning that filthy house requires prosecutions, I'm all for it.  But, I also want to move beyond restoring the pre-Bush status quo and onto the job of passing progressive legislation.  Getting bogged down in payback scenarios could slow down positive movement.

    As Obama say, we need more light.  That will send the cock-roaches scuttling back into the dark places they came from and that might be enough for me.

  •  Not quite this simple (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dharmafarmer, VClib, LCA

    Even if Obama had every intention of going after these thugs (in EITHER party) and tearing down the Cheneytarian Executive (which I believe that he does), the forces that will be arrayed against such an effort will be enormous and quite powerful (again, in both parties). To do this openly and directly would therefore be counterproductive. What I think that he will do, and what he should do, is continue to put on his deceptively naive (which I believe it is anything but) happy face of unity, while directing his people to slowly and methodically go after the ideological, legal and human underpinnings of the Bush regime, and take it down brick by brick. Dismantle the laws, the EO's, the directives, the political infrastructure, etc., that Bush & Cheney had built up, and go after the people who built it up, legally where warranted, and in other ways when not. And do it quietly, and with that public happy face, to make it hard for them to defend themselves.

    This is what he needs to do, and this is what I think he will do. Because, since they're still quite powerful, this is the only way that I think that this can be done. Any other path is sure to lead to major blowback and retreat. And we simply cannot afford that.

    0101011101100101 010101000110100001100101 010100000110010101101111011100000110110001100101

    by kovie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:23:58 PM PST

    •  Problem is, I don't trust anyone to do it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, buhdydharma, NonnyO

      Remember how so many people around here thought Pelosi had a secret plan to "gather the evidence" and "make the case?"

      Sneaking up on the biggest crime gang on the planet, with the full warrantless spying power of the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. seems to me impossible.

      When you have numbers on your side, often a full frontal assault is the best tactic.

      They've got lies and deception.  We're not going to beat them at their own game.  Let's play ours — democracy.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:15:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought that electing people whom we felt (0+ / 0-)

        would be most likely to do what we believe needs to be done was what democracy was all about. We thought that this would be enougn in '06, but it only got us part of the way there (yet no reasonable person couldn't possibly deny that as little good that the 110th has done, it has surely prevented yet more bad, and has paved the way for '08).

        And why would a Dem president need to "sneak up" on these organizations, since they would all be reporting to him or her? The point is to win the presidency, clean up house, and then go after those who have harmed it, and our country. Clearly the Dem-led congress either can't or won't do this by itself. Now we need to elect a Dem president and enlarge the Dem majorities, and it'll be a lot easier to get this all done.

        And we'll be there to keep them honest.

        0101011101100101 010101000110100001100101 010100000110010101101111011100000110110001100101

        by kovie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:36:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Disputing the 110th preventing the bad (0+ / 0-)
          Bush/Cheney/Rove tried to push through FISA revisions toward the end of the 109th, and Congress stopped it. In the 110th, Congress passed it, last August. Why? I think because the Dems have power, and they're not going to risk rocking the federal/industrial/military boat now.

          Anyway, you're asking the Dem candidate to act like a water under the bridger, and then once in office make a lie out of that and prosecute. I want campaign promises to prosecute, made out in the open, to which we can then hold the President once elected.

          I know it's a lot to ask, and the establishment press, political class, and business class would go after the candidate like they did to Dean in 2004. I just don't think we'll get justice any other way.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:56:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  For the record (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrKate, buhdydharma, greenearth

    I wasn't sure this diary would hit the rec'd diary list (as almost all of Buhdy's past diaries have), so I'm glad to have added the "recommended" tag.

    Hope is passive. America needs someone to fight for her! John Edwards 2008!

    Congressional Dems say that history will call the Bush regime a "miserable failure." What will history say about those who sat back and let it happen? IMPEACH!

    by Lisa Lockwood on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM PST

  •  Bush to retire to life of luxury! F.U.! (6+ / 0-)

    After coloring in all the books in his Presidential Library,  he'll ride off into the sunset, giving you the middle finger salute,  and "replenishing the ol' coffers"  after bankrupting the US Treasury.   And thanks to cowardly Democrats, he'll never face the bar of justice for his crimes against humanity.

    Feeling all that "hope"  yet, y'all?

    George W Bush is looking forward to working less after leaving office and to making some easy money giving speeches, according to a new book that gives the most intimate portrait yet of his presidency.

    Mr Bush said: "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

    Worth an estimated $21 million (£10.5 million) - made mostly before he took office in 2000 - he said that to begin with, "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers. I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 thousand dollars per speech." He also noted: "Clinton's making a lot of money."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

    "World peace through non-violent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed." MLK

    by SmedleyButlerUSMC on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM PST

  •  You left out one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, greenearth

    Will you REOPEN THE 911 INVESTIGATION? American demands answers ... if they are too tough maybe you should not be running.

    While I agree with your stance I do not see it happening. As spiteful as the rethugs are it would seem to open up a dangerous precidence of hunting former past Presidents for crimes. (Interesting way to keep them in line though)
    Who is to say that in two more years a Republican house wont start hunting the Democratic President ... AGAIN. Can they Impeach Bill again?

    "We dont neeed, no mor troubles" - Bob Marley

    by joeshwingding on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:29:07 PM PST

  •  Obama says in ever speech... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, canoeist

    ... that he will to close Gitmo and restore habeas.  Why do people on Kos keeping asking him questions he's already answered?

  •  Will Hillary or Edwards? (0+ / 0-)

    Of the three, I have more confidence in Obama doing it then either of the others. Edwards may have the will, but he's tainted by having voted for the war. How can you prosecute somebody else for something you enabled? Well, it can be done, but that's not the way it'll be painted. Obama's got a clean war record he can use.

    Now, that's bearing in mind that I am not optimistic that any of the three would actually do it, or that Congress would actually allow it. Or that a Bush-loaded Judiciary would actually allow it. But of the slim chances we have, our best is with Obama, imo.

    "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -Einstein

    by jabbausaf on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM PST

  •  Those are all excellent questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    and I really really hope someone asks them of the eventual nominees, during the debates or on the campaign trail. Of course, we already know how one side would answer.

    The next president needs to do two things simultaneously: establish a forward-looking agenda that starts solving immediate problems that have been long ignored by the current administration, while also setting up an official appraisal of the damage done over the last eight years, bringing everything into the light and putting forth proposals to repair past and prevent future abuses.

    What an impact that would have!

    But I think Obama's answers (like any of the candidate's) would necessarily be cautious and careful, open to interpretation, and probably infuriating to progressives who want to see justice served hot. He won't want to alienate moderates and independents, or allow the media narrative to become all about retribution and payback instead of the future.

    After all, Americans generally value continuity following their elections, and don't like delving into the past immediately after Inauguration Day (as we've painfully learned).

    But the Bush years were unusually dark, uniquely dangerous, and I think Americans will eventually want full disclosure of how close we came to disaster. I think that, once it's perceived as history rather than a current event (for which they may feel some collective guilt), I think the public will be behind thorough investigations, with legal and legislative consequences.

    So, meanwhile, by all means, ask the questions, and study the clues, but let's not get disenchanted or overly optimistic, but rather keep the pressure on.

    "......" -- Harpo Marx

    by BobzCat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:41:56 PM PST

  •  Will a President (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfood, farleftcoast, NonnyO

    Obama reverse President Bush's executive orders that seal Presidential papers from the elder Bush's  administration?

    If they can listen in on my phone calls, why can't I read their 12 year old memos?

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.-- Blaise Pascal

    by Pandemoniac on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:45:09 PM PST

  •  Good Questions--Obama Would Close Gitmo (0+ / 0-)

    “We need to bring to a close this sad chapter in American history, and begin a chapter that passes the might of our military to the freedom of our diplomacy and the power of our alliances. And while we are at it, we can close down Guantanamo and we can restore habeas corpus and we can lead with our ideas and our values.”  -Barack Obama, Richmond, VA, May 8th

  •  Excellent question... miss you around these parts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, buhdydharma
  •  Obama Clearly Knows the DOJ Has Been Politicized (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous, and they are especially troubling coming from the federal official charged with protecting voting rights in this country. Mr. Tanner has already demonstrated questionable judgment in overruling the decision of Justice Department lawyers that the Georgia photo ID requirement would disproportionately discriminate against African Americans. For Mr. Tanner to now suggest, in an effort to defend his erroneous decision, that photo identification are not necessary for minority voters because "they die first" shows just how far the Justice Department has fallen. This is a disgrace and yet another reason why the next Attorney General must demonstrate a strong commitment to civil rights.

    But, until the next Attorney General is confirmed, you are in charge of the Department, and you are in charge of ensuring that our laws are enforced and that the civil rights of all Americans are protected. Through his inexcusable comments, Mr. Tanner has clearly demonstrated that he possesses neither the character nor the judgment to be heading the Voting Rights Section. For that reason, I respectfully request that you remove him from his position.

    --From a letter to Peter Keisler, Acting AG, Oct 19, 2007.

  •  I could care less about prosecuting bushco (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, Chicago Lulu, boofdah, VClib

    I want to move on, not stay embroiled in old battles. Democrats have had seven years to prosecute Bushco and have failed to do so. It's time the entire pack of them, the crooks and their democratic enablers were dumped into history's dustbin.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:00:55 PM PST

  •  Obama on Use and Abuse of Exec Power (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chicago Lulu, boofdah

    The Boston Globe asked all of the candidates to respond to 12 questions on the nature of exeutive power.  Here's a link to Obama's response (which covers many of the other issues you raise).

    http://www.boston.com/...

    The page also has links to the answers provided by Clinton, Edwards, and others.  Giuliani, btw, declined to answer all questions.

  •  There is no statute of limitations on impeachment (7+ / 0-)

    This is important to remember.

    Conviction in an impeachment proceeding, even after the office is left, removes all protections and awards of office. This would, I think, include illegalities committed under cover of law.

    At the very least, every single person sent to Iraq, and their families, should have the right to seek recompense in courts of law.

    At the very least.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM PST

    •  oh damn straight Jim P (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, Jim P, NonnyO

      Impeachment is the only way to restore the rule of law and the Constitution, even after they all leave office, there must be a reckoning.

      This will get attached to your comments.

      by indeterminate cutlery on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:15:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Get real (0+ / 0-)

      With a Dem majority we can't even have impeachment hearings. When BushCo is gone and out of office what members of Congress do you think would have an interest in impeachment? They would be laughed out of DC.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps. in '09, with everything (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        farleftcoast

        turning to merde, Democratic strategy might be to pin the blame, and direct the public's fury, where it belongs.

        Why not? They'd find it both smart and necessary. Better than letting the Republicans blame it all on Democrats.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:54:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I thought Obama taught constit law at U of C (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, GetTogether

    I presume he can see the threats caused by this centralization of power to the constitution.  I suspect he will be very quiet on this before the election and set up a non-partisan commission to examine all the ways the constitution has been beaten up during this administration.  He will implement the recommendations.  This way he keeps the veneer of impartiality and makes the process one the country can unite around.  

    "The Dream of reason did not take power into account" Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine

    by donag on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:10:04 PM PST

  •  Prosecuting Bush Co (0+ / 0-)

    The President of the US doesn't handle prosecutions.  The real question here is whom might Obama, Clinton, and Edwards appoint as Attorney General.  I don't have any expectation that Clinton, if elected, would appoint a pit bull.  Obama and Edwards might.  The Dems would just be making a mockery of their accusations of abuse of executive power if a new president politicized the DoJ so it could begin a wave of vengeful prosecutions, can we agree?  What you really want is someone who would appoint a strong AG and has no truck with this argument that the executive branch can do what it wants in the name of national security.

  •  Alternative to Impeachment: Transitional Justice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, farleftcoast, boofdah

    I'm an obama supporter who thinks this diary is excellent and that he would probably disappoint me with his answers. Because this alternative intrigued me, I remembered it from last summer and have provided the link.

    http://www.tpmcafe.com/...

    I fully expect all the crooks and liars to either walk away into corporate power or keep their gov't positions, no matter who wins.

    •  or simply wait it out until Repugs win again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      and enter back in, like many of them have done since Nixon and Reagan.

      Reagan was bad enough, but Bush has criminals installed in every single damn service the Federal government offers. From NASA to the NIH, they have destroyed lifetime careers of scientists, distorted the truth and lied. Criminals in charge of the GSA, in charge of the Department of Justice.

      They'll be back, unless Congress takes aggressive action.  

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  At the very least.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    .... Barack Obama should hold up for confirmation an attorney general who will investigate possible charges.

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:32:50 PM PST

  •  Perhaps Obama would give legitimacy back (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    to the International Crimes Tribunal.

  •  he shouldn't answer that question directly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Termite, Greg306

    His answer should be that it is his job to be president and it's the justice department's job to prosecute crimes and that it would be highly inappropriate for him to do such a thing.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:48:14 PM PST

  •  Truth and reconcilliation commission (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Termite, greenearth

    This is what will be needed post Bushco. Those who confess their crimes and acts against the good of the nation (legal or not) will not be prosecuted. Those who don't get the book thrown at them using the evidence the others provide.

    The country has NO IDEA what has been going on in our name. If/when they find out, the Republicans will be through as a national Party for at least a generation, and good riddance!

    "We are building a political movement -- not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." --De

    by Jim in Chicago on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:48:39 PM PST

  •  Barak Obama said military action on Iran (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    msl, farleftcoast, boofdah, greenearth, NonnyO

    was on the table. That would be military action, not in response to an attack on America, but as a way of getting them to give up whatever nuclear weapons program they might have. That kind of military aggression is known as preventive war, which I believe is a war crime. Is it correct to say that Obama refuses to take war crimes off the table?

    •  Nuremberg Judgment (0+ / 0-)

      That kind of military aggression is known as preventive war, which I believe is a war crime.

      At the Nuremberg trials, it was called "aggressive war" - and it is a war crime.  Defining aggressive war as a war crime is in the Geneva Conventions, which is part of our Constitution per the treaties clause, so invading a country for no good reason is a war crime under our Constitution, too.

      There's no such thing as a "preventive war" - that's just neoCon semantics.  Starting a war to prevent a war is oxymoronic, and rather like what Dickie and Georgie did in Iraq.  It never did make sense.  And, yes, that's why it's a war crime.  Torture has been illegal and a war crime for as long as I have a memory; that one was just plainly over the top, likely done for Georgie's and Dickie's sadistic pleasure.

      Congress Critters can't say "If we knew then what we know now, I never would have voted for the IWR."  They knew.  I remember watching Hans Blix sound bytes when he was being interviewed by Congress and also when he was interviewed by news shows, and he said there were no WMDs in Iraq, and so did the other UN inspectors.  It was all a trumped up lie, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that before the invasion.  Only a few Congress Critters voted against the war, per their common sense and their conscience.

      I knew during the 2000 debates as soon as Georgie said he 'wouldn't do any nation building' that he would invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war, and that we'd go into a recession - I journaled about it that night.  I couldn't believe it when political bobbleheads declared afterwards that he'd done a good job in the debate and even won it.  I sensed doom right then, and my gut instinct was right, but the reality has exceeded my dreaded nightmares.

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by NonnyO on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:56:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope to god he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

    try to prosecute Bush. The last thing this country needs is to make the next 8 years all about the previous 8 years.

    •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)

      It amazes me how completed pyschotically obsessed so many are on the left about Bush to the extent it blinds them to practical reality.

      And hear I thought we were the "reality-based" community.

      Liberals drive me crazy. Unfortunately, conservatives are even worse.

      by goblue72 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  IF there are no (6+ / 0-)

        consequences to the blatant law breaking, it will continue.  I don't want to see the next eight years be about the last eight but something must be done, even if it is to make some Constitutional (remember that thing) amendments defining the rights and responsibilities of the Executive.  There were no consequences for Iran-Contra so some of the same law breakers came to play in this administration and continued their illegal acts.  For crying out loud, there have got to be consequences.

        "Life is a tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think" - Jean de la Bruyere

        by Tinuviel on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:50:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I always thought elections had consequences; n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast
          •  no (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            linnen, farleftcoast, snazzzybird

            afraid not.  Remember that guy Nixon who claimed that if the president did it, it wasn't illegal?  Yeah, that's where Bush the lesser got that whole unitary executive crap from.  In fact, Bush's entire presidency seemed to be an eerie second coming of Nixon.  From Rumsfeld and Cheney, to Henry Kissinger.  They all crawled out of the woodwork to attempt, once again, to fuck America.

            And this time they won.  And they'll be back in another twenty years or so.

            "it's a success that hasn't occurred yet" —The entirely nonpartisan Frances Fragos Townsend on capturing Osama bin Laden.

            by hour on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:59:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  No admendments required. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          farleftcoast, NonnyO

          As "hour" says slightly downthread, the "unitary executive" concept is basically a bit of hand-waving over the Executive Clause of Article II.  The exact same argument would apply (just as wrongly) no matter how you amend the Constitution.

          The problem is not, repeat not, that the Constitution is unclear on the limits of executive power.  The problem is one party that is power-mad and another party that persists in enabling them.

      •  Here's reality (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catfood, farleftcoast, snazzzybird

        Look at my diary

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        We keep recycling the same criminals into the WH with each Repugnant Wave. Each time, they dig deeper into the very machine of governance that makes this country work, and destroy it.

        The next time they get power, they will do what Bush couldn't [at least it appears we may have one last respite] - destroy it forever.

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
        If you want to go far, go together.
        We have to go far, quickly."

        by shpilk on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  those who let the past go (6+ / 0-)

      are doomed to relive it

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:18:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He will not do this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    He'll be singing Kumbaya with them.

    As Ken Silverstein learned from an anonymous Washington lobbyist last year," big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a 'player.'"

    by formernadervoter on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM PST

  •  No candidate will answer these questions... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, shpilk, farleftcoast, NonnyO, VClib

    ...as good as they are. I want justice. I want Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld frog-marched to a public square, placed in stocks, and publically humilated.

    But it aint gonna happen.

    As for prosecuting BushCheney; What makes you believe they haven't shredded any and all incriminating evidence ala the "torture tapes"? The most secretive administration in history isn't going to seal all it's records citing "exectutive privelege"??

    It's as if we --all of a sudden-- have come to believe that the Bushies will play by the rules and ALLOW us to prosecute them.

    But I still like the public stock & pillory thing....

    "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

    by CanisMaximus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM PST

    •  You are right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, NonnyO

      No Dem candidate (except Dennis) will answer these questions.  Even if they were thinking about it, they would not even mention it until after the election.  None of the three front-runners would ever investigate and prosecute Bush, Cheney, or any Bush Cabinet member. Will never happen, guaranteed, and take it to the bank. It's just not done inside the beltway.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:32:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even if he planned to do this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify

    (and I hope whoever becomes president will have the good sense to) why would he telegraph that intent now ?  That would not only be foolish, but would contradict the messeage he's trying to convey of not fighting yesterdays battles.

    That being said, If he must, later on he could announce that there would be a blue ribbon panel a la the 911 commission that can report to the nation on all that's happened, and if (ha ha ) there has been law breaking, it would be dealt w/ in the proper manner.

    Your request, while certainly needed , would really be counterproductive at this point and dilute the good will our side now has.

    I once heard a story about 2 bulls standing atop a hill surveying a herd of cows below. The younger bull turns to the older and says, " why don't we run down and fuck a few of em ? " The older bull replies, " why don't we walk, and fuck em all. "

    Poor government comes about when good citizens sit on their hands instead of standing on their feet.' -- Robert Baker

    by jaysunb on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:55:14 PM PST

  •  Unity / Uniter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob Mac K, farleftcoast, Simplify

    Would the following actions "Unite" America?

    1.  Investigating and prosecuting members of the Bush junta for the crimes they have perpetrated against America;
    1.  Investigating, confronting, and punishing corporations who have abused their power, to the detriment of society, in the all-encompassing pursuit of shareholder value;
    1.  Investigating and punishing the lobbyist establishment for enabling and making corruption an almost necessary facet of a politician's professional life;
    1.  Confronting and destroying entities such as Halliburton, Blackwater, and other nefarious contractors who have profited from their products of death and destruction;
    1.  Dismantling the out-of-control health death insurance  industry;
    1.  Rolling back tax cuts which benefit only the most wealthy members of our society;
    1.  Removing tax advantages from outsourcing / over-seas incorporated companies and replacing such incentives with penalties;
    1.  Applying the social security tax on ALL income, not just the first $97,500.00;
    1.  Reversing Bush's "signing statements" through whatever means necessary;
    1.  Sending to jail members of the Justice Department, CIA, Homeland Security, FBI, and enabling executives at corporations which facilitated illegal gathering of information on American citizens;

    I could go on but I believe any one of the above points, if adopted as a position, would not be "uniting".  

    If I walk into a room of hostile people and announce "I am a uniter" - that is a signal that they will have a seat at my table and I am willing to negotiate - and more importantly, my goal is not to alienate them.

    If, however, I walk into a room of hostile people and announce "you are thieves;  you are destroying this country's middle class and I am going to make you powerless" -then, and only then, do the forces opposed to the middle class know for certain that the battle has finally been joined by someone representing the middle class.

    This is why I have a problem with O'Bama - I like O'Bama, I believe he is at heart a good man.  I also firmly believe he will prove to be another Bill Clinton;  Unlike Bill, he will not have to suffer defeats in a first term to realize he has to "play ball" -- he will "play ball" from day one.

    And the middle class will continue in its forced march of decline.

    Privatization: The art of giving taxpayer funds to those who don't need it for providing services they view as wasteful.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM PST

    •  Personally... (0+ / 0-)

      I don't want anyone to tell me s/he's a "uniter."  That's what Georgie said before he was elected the first time.  He's brought us nothing but divisiveness and shame and told lies, lies, and more lies while committing war crimes in our names.

      I want someone who will abide by the oath of office to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.'  If the next resident of the oval office can't do at least that much - which means yes, also investigate, indict, and impeach/try the war criminals, whoever they may be - then they do not deserve to hold the office.

      (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯)

      by NonnyO on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great questions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, farleftcoast

    and a great picture.

    He certainly looks the part.

    I'm serious what a great picture.

    If he answered those questions straight up, without equivocation, I'd be much more comfortable with him.

    Sharing and Caring are for Commies! They should be illegal.

    by k9disc on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM PST

  •  you are the naive one (0+ / 0-)

    "the specter of naivete and gullibility do hang over Barack's head slightly more than the other two candidates, both due to his inexperience, some past statements about cooperating with Republican politicians, and his well....niceguyness."

    (1) Edwards and Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Obama was against it.

    (2) Edwards was a one term senator! Obama has spent more time in government(state and fed) than either Edwards or Clinton.

    It is Edwards and Clinton who were dangerously naive in voting for the war. Edwards continued to defend his vote for YEARS!

    All the questions you pose in your diary should be addressed to ALL the candidates. Your diary comes off as anti-Obama. I take it you support Edwards.

  •  Great Diary! Thanks! n/t (0+ / 0-)

    The People shouldn't fear the government, the government should fear the People. V

    by rubine on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM PST

  •  My succinct thoughts on this diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buhdydharma
    1.  Great questions.
    1.  Horrible litmus test.
  •  Obama focused on US priorties. Not the fringe's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ericwmr

    Obama is running on working on US national priorities, not the revenge fantasies of the fringe.

    1. Elect a Democratic president and working majority.
    1. Iraq war. Middle East terrorism, al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
    1. Energy independence/Global Warming
    1. Health care
    1. Deficit/Debt
    1. Special interest influence, transparency in govt.
  •  none of the top Dems (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, farleftcoast, NonnyO

    has the moral conviction to hold Bush and friends criminally responsible for their actions, simply because each is prepared to pursue almost identical foreign policy aims themselves.

    "No conceivable threat to this country is worth compromising a single civil liberty for. Not one."

    by DavidHW on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:20:16 PM PST

  •  Redact the buzz words! What of the authentic (3+ / 0-)

    remains?

    The powers of Unitary Executive truly intoxicating!!

    Aloha .. .. ..

  •  Thank you! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hornito, gnat, farleftcoast, NonnyO

    The question of accountability is key to my vote.

    Without accountability, how can there be real change?

  •  It would be nice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, farleftcoast

    but it would be better to repair all the damage they've done over the past eight years. Though it may require prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Condi, and all others to do it.

    "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed."   —Marvin, The Paranoid Android

    by londubh on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:00:48 PM PST

  •  In a word. (0+ / 0-)

    No.

    If Congress gains a hefty Democrat lead in 2008 as well.  Maybe.

  •  Prosecute Bushco? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ohcanada

    What a question. You know the answer. Of course not. No matter how big the Democratic majorities might be he will not go down that road.

    •  And the kids (3+ / 0-)

      who gave everything in the lie that was the Iraq war, fought for oil,  what of their sacrifices, they are forever, the brain damage, the blindness, the lives. Who speaks for them?

      It will be like Vietnam, a stain that takes more than just forgetting it happened while no one really ever forgets.

      George McGovern calls for the Impeachment of George Bush in todays Washington Post..its the elephant in the room.

      OUTLOOK
      Impeach George W. Bush
      George McGovern | Nixon was bad. Bush and Cheney are worse.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

      by ohcanada on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Santa's bringing pardons to all the bad kids (0+ / 0-)

    If it even remotely looks like the next Presdient is coming into office with serious investiagation in mind, we have to expect there'll be a stack of pardons under the tree at Dubya's last White House Christmas party. A few peons might be thrown under the bust, but the inner circle  Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Gonzo, Miers, etc.....they're going to be fine.

    Well, maybe not Gonzo....

  •  He said he wouldn't (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rob Mac K, farleftcoast, ohcanada

    At least as far as supporting impeachment or prosecution goes, and that it cost him my support in the primary-- actually caused me to write the only candidate letters I've sent out this cycle over it. Not happy with that at all.

    Not that I don't see his point-- it doesn't help him build this glorious future coalition he's constantly raving about. It might even get in the way of getting done what needs to be done.

    But damned if I'm ready to sacrifice justice to do that.

  •  At least you recognize that he will be President (0+ / 0-)

    nm

    "When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why are the poor hungry, they called me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 08:36:39 PM PST

  •  I worry (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, buhdydharma, NonnyO

    In Nixon's time, many of the perps got away scot free, or with slaps on their wrists.

    In Reagan's time, some of the same players resurfaced to take part in heinous crimes against millions in Central and South America.

    And now, some of these same criminals, and new ones groomed have delved more deeply into our system of governance than ever before.

    On New Year's Day, I asked this same question.

    I really don't think we will get an answer we want to hear, no matter who is President at this point from the top of the pack.

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM PST

  •  I shouldn't even have to say it at this point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, NonnyO

    but the answers to these question will decide whether or not I'm willing to vote for any democratic candidate.  I, for one, have no interest in moving on.

  •  last comment! (0+ / 0-)

    HAH!

    This will get attached to your comments.

    by indeterminate cutlery on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:12:30 PM PST

  •  As an Obama supporter, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO

    I recommend this diary.

    Those ARE important questions, and they DO need to be asked of him.  It should be asked of all the candidates, but, in particular, I would like to know what Obama says, because the rhetoric of unity makes me worry about this.

    I want Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.  I want to see Bush administration people forced to confess for immunity or face prison.  I want the world to know that what happened during these past seven years was an ABERRATION and it is NOT reflective of who we are as Americans.  We need to dissociate ourselves from it as totally as we can.  

  •  Investigate. Interrogate. Indict. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO

    Prosecute. Convict. Incarcerate.

  •  Repudiation and retribution are not (0+ / 0-)

    mutually exclusive, but there will be a major job to do in hiring and staffing, and moving new legislation through the Congress.  The time for retribution has passed. We missed it when impeachment came off the table.  

    If the pendulum is indeed swinging back a bit quicker than we expect, there will be little time for the legal payback suggested.  The dark force will surround these contemptible cancers and swallow up all the evidence that will be needed to investigate, indict, prosecute and convict.

    The dark force: These characters, these bad actors, take care of each other, and that may include Democrats who would go easy on their so-called foes.  If we have just learned anything over the past 12 months, it is that they are all corrupted by the same fraternal bonds of their sinister membership and occupation in government office.  

    Notwithstanding the courage of a few, all that Dodd was really doing was his job, for his constituents, which is only what we know all of our Dems should have been doing.  

    The courtesy that sharks will afford one another when feeding, for instance, is instructive.  The so-called "feeding frenzy" may cause a casualty here and there, but "no harm, no bad" is the theme.

    And in getting the job done, I am not too sanguine about the success that Obama can achieve without the emergency powers that are now at his disposal.  It will be a test, and the plots are already being constructed.  

    Anyhow, don't you think these top secret government scenarios have been gamed at the Pentagon and the NSA/CIA/DIA & State Dept. for a few years now?

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:59:22 PM PST

  •  Obama's quick-wit/wisdom (0+ / 0-)

    Here's a debate video Obama had with Keyes in 2004 that is so funny, especially when Obama said, "Your logic wasn't hard to follow, it's just that it was wrong":
    Obama schools Keyes

  •  Thanks for the diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NonnyO

    This is issue numero uno for me, to the point that if a Dem nominee fails to prosecute or aggressively investigate Bushco, I will agitate for their 2012 primary defeat. It's incredibly important, particularly since investigations now are somewhat stymied by Bush's lack of cooperation and his pardon power. But 2009 will be a whole new ball of wax...

  •  thanks, buhdydharma. (0+ / 0-)

    I've been asking the candidates myself, and I encourage everyone to ask the hard questions early and often.

  •  We can't make that mistake again. (0+ / 0-)

    Please remember that many of the perpetrators of todays injustices were also involved in Watergate, were involved in Iran Contra and the Death Squads in Central America. That these people have continued in power, continued to pursue their own agendas out of their twisted ideologies, that these in fact are the very people that have CAUSED the disunity in America that you decry.

    This is exactly why we can't "just move on".  We've done that before, with disastrous results.

    Our troops won the war. Bush lost the peace.

    by snazzzybird on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:00:22 AM PST

  •  Rip Out the Roots (0+ / 0-)

    Unity with the remains of the Bushco crime family that will linger like a bad smell
    [...]
    Please remember that many of the perpetrators of todays injustices were also involved in Watergate, were involved in Iran Contra and the Death Squads in Central America. That these people have continued in power, continued to pursue their own agendas out of their twisted ideologies, that these in fact are the very people that have CAUSED the disunity in America that you decry.

    The Bush Jr regime is just the flowering of the Bush Sr Iran/Contra regime after operating covertly for 8 Clinton years. Rooted in the Nixon regime (Cheney/Rumsfeld anyone?) that operated covertly for 4 Carter years. If it's not ripped out by the roots once Democrats have the power to do so, when Americans know it's necessary, then of course they're cooperating with keeping it going.

    Republicans understand that process. That's why their first order of business is always to burn down any Democratic legacy that stands in their way, especially if it's a law or an organization.

    Democrats have whined for years that they can't deliver justice "because we don't have the votes". So the instant they have the votes, they must deliver justice. Or admit they're among the criminals.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:43:54 AM PST

  •  LAST COMMENT ! ! ! (0+ / 0-)

    Ha HAH!

    This will get attached to your comments.

    by indeterminate cutlery on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:20:58 AM PST

Leslie in CA, Rebecca, EvanAllen, Sue, Pat K California, claude, Ottoe, davej, BrooklynBoy, Jon Meltzer, jillian, radish, daxie, hester, deben, Sparhawk, Trendar, slip kid no more, sharronmar, Delaware Dem, tiggers thotful spot, MarkC, catfish, Robert Ullmann, ljm, msl, SeltzerDuke, janinsanfran, TocqueDeville, Bob Love, sara seattle, Shockwave, billlaurelMD, Jim in Chicago, OLinda, Ugluks Flea, mainely49, Pompatus, polecat, RKS, object16, givmeliberty, Jerome a Paris, Birdman, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, karno, NoisyGong, concernedamerican, Boston Boomer, bronte17, conchita, Dazy, landrew, DrKate, wonkydonkey, anotherCt Dem, nyceve, understandinglife, ixos, OCD, undercovercalico, peace voter, bluesteel, chuckvw, PBnJ, cosmic debris, gayntom, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, roses, amberglow, Larry Bailey, cognitive dissonance, Fe, BruinKid, thingamabob, lilnubber, enough already, splashy, antirove, scorpiorising, psnyder, annan, nancelot, danthrax, TexDem, fightorleave, pat bunny, Chicago Lulu, StuartZ, lezlie, exiledfromTN, BMarshall, Black Maned Pensator, noveocanes, witulski, betson08, beachmom, Timbuk3, gnat, Pohjola, Brian82, fritzrth, inclusiveheart, Donna in Rome, nasarius, Levity, JayDean, fran1, poemworld, Knightrider, vacantlook, rambler american, rmx2630, thereisnospoon, Shapeshifter, Illissius, 2d, Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean, averageyoungman, nailbender, Karma for All, nehark, Skennet Boch, Fabian, chumley, tovan, bloomer 101, Bluesee, farleftcoast, ZZZzzz, Tinfoil Hat, supak, tgnyc, ichibon, LakeSuperior, lightnessofbeing, ignorant bystander, mgris, Paul Goodman, sap, elkhunter, frandor55, clammyc, Simplify, kaye, juliesie, Kdoug, Laurence Lewis, boofdah, gloriousbastard, LNK, Pam from Calif, washingtonsmith, Jaime Frontero, jimreyn, GreyHawk, lotlizard, Skid, wgard, swissffun, illyia, lasky57, jane123, simultaneous contrast, mikolo, Habanero, Savvy813, ikrisarus, power model, Silence is Complicity, Lisa Lockwood, bunsk, MetalCelt, Rogneid, bookwoman, Flippant, Ekaterin, mightymouse, justine, fhcec, Jim P, maryru, Reality Bites Back, rserven, Shirley P, dus7, BobzCat, Do Tell, Compound F, PatsBard, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, sherlyle, cybersaur, BlueInARedState, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, mooshter, Dvalkure, koNko, kestrel9000, tek writer, annagranfors, The Wizard, Magnifico, Nestor Makhnow, Hobbitfoot, Blue Wind, people for truth, CAL11 voter, DarkestHour, VegasLiberalStevo, real world chick, FireCrow, redglare, Sagebrush Bob, NearlyNormal, CTLiberal, totallynext, Unitary Moonbat, ChapiNation386, vox humana, CA Nana, zeke7237, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Dianna, va dare, judasdisney, kurious, bstotts, kidneystones, Friend of the court, zephron, Temmoku, sea note, markthshark, Grannus, Aaa T Tudeattack, BentLiberal, ammasdarling, bigchin, beaukitty, FoundingFatherDAR, dov12348, A Mad Mad World, ibonewits, xaxado, asilomar, feline, C Barr, GetTogether, FWIW, godislove, suburi, CenterLeft, BruceMcF, Calvin Revolt USA, Outrider, Sam from Ithaca, McGirk, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, Matt Z, Jimdotz, ezdidit, deepeco, DWG, joyful, londubh, walkingdeer, phoenixdreamz, Rex Manning, Canyon Lefty, dolphin777, manwithnoname, mcc777c2, mudslide, rrheard, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, mrbubs, A Person, zorp, BRRubin, willb48, Hens Teeth, Foraker, TomP, Winter Rabbit, fayeforcure, rogerdaddy, VelvetElvis, John Poet, Devsd, Mad Kossack, EmperorHadrian, indeterminate cutlery, TX Freethinker, Blue Town, Beastmouth, MikePhoenix, Seattle Mark, Demo37, Brandon Friedman, spencerh, Foundmyvoice, SmedleyButlerUSMC, binkaroni, Mannabass, okamichan13, Sharon Wraight, Kevin Holsinger, alasmoses, peaceloveandkucinich, Jeff Y, IADave, KttG, temprano, Jacques, LCA, media whores, ShainZona, aigeanta, DixieDishrag, Fallon, MantisOahu, CatfishBlues, Mike Taylor, Leo in NJ, NetRootsDaily, J Ash Bowie, snackdoodle, Good Hope Road, BBelle

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site